Walser v. Austin

37 P. 869, 104 Cal. 128, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 865
California Supreme Court·Decided September 17, 1894·No. No. 18249·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

De Haven, J.

It was held in the case of Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 219, that subdivision 21 of section 170 [130]*130of the- County Government' Act, approved March 31, 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 295), contains local and special legislation, and is in conflict with section 5 of article XI of the constitution of the state, which directs that the legislature by general and uniform laws shall provide for the election or appointment in the several counties of such county, township, and municipal officers “as public convenience may require, and shall prescribe their duties and fix their terms of office.” We can add nothing to the reasoning by which that conclusion was reached, and upon the authority of that case the judgment and order herein must be affirmed.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Fitzgeuald, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Walser v. Austin, 37 P. 869, 104 Cal. 128, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 865 (Cal. 1894).

37 P. 869 (Walser v. Austin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wines v. Garrison
214 P. 56 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
Newman v. Lester
105 P. 785 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
Tulare County v. May
50 P. 427 (California Supreme Court, 1897)