Kilroy v. Whitmore

California Court of Appeal Jun 16, 1931 No. Docket No. 4362.Published

Before: Jamison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A legislative amendment increasing the salary of a justice of the peace, enacted after the officer's election and commencement of their term, violates the constitutional prohibition against increasing an officer's compensation during their term. Furthermore, an officer must perform new duties germane to their office without additional compensation if the salary increase associated with those duties is unconstitutional.

Issues

Whether a legislative amendment increasing a justice of the peace's salary, enacted after the officer's term began, violates the California Constitution.
Whether an officer is entitled to extra compensation for new duties that are germane to their office when the associated salary increase is unconstitutional.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Constitution (sec. 9, art. XI) clearly implies that there must be a law in force fixing the compensation of every county and township officer at the date of his election, and' it imperatively forbids any increase of that compensation”

“This was not an automatic increase of the salary of the office of justice of the peace of said township caused by an increase of population to a class established prior to his taking office, but it was an increase of said salary by a direct act”

“An officer who accepts an office to which a fixed salary or compensation is attached is deemed to undertake to perform its duties for the salary or compensation fixed, though it be inadequate”

JAMISON, J.,

pro

tem.

This is a proceeding by

mandamus

by petitioner, as Justice of the Peace of Turlock Township, in Stanislaus County, to compel H. C. Keeley, as Auditor of said county, to draw a warrant in his favor and to compel Edward Whitmore, as Treasurer of said county, to pay the same, Kilroy, the petitioner, being hereafter referred to as the respondent and Whitmore and Keeley as the appellants.

Respondent was elected Justice of the Peace of Turlock township in November, 1926, and took office January 3, 1927, and thereafter continued to act as such Justice of the Peace during all of the times named in the petition, appellants during said period holding the said offices of Auditor and Treasurer respectively.

Subdivision 13 of section 4245 of the Political Code provides that for the purpose of regulating the compensation of justices of the peace of townships of this class of counties, the said townships should be classified according to their population, as shown by the total number of registered voters in each township at the next preceding general election, prior to the fixing of the classification, the said population to be determined by multiplying the said total number of registered voters by three and one-half.

When respondent took office, Turlock township having a population of 8,000 and less than 15,000, was classified as belonging to the second class with a justice’s salary of $100 per month. In 1927, and after respondent had entered upon the discharge of the duties of his office, subdivision 13 of section 4245 was amended by adding an additional class to those then in existence, known as class one and one-half, by providing that a township having a population of 11,000 and less than 15,000 should belong to and be known as townships of the one and one-half class, in which the justice of the peace should receive a salary of $150 per month.

■ On August 15, 1927, the board of supervisors of said county of Stanislaus made an order to the effect that it appearing that the total number of registered voters in Turlock township, at the general election in November, 1926, was 3,469, that, therefore, the population of said township

[46]

Kilroy v. Whitmore

AI Brief

JAMISON, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief