Martin v. De Shields
Before: Lawlor
Synopsis
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus to compel a county auditor to draw a salary warrant. Granted.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
LAWLOR, J.
This is a companion case to
Jones
v.
De Shields, ante,
p. 331, [202 Pac. 137]. Petitioner, Henry Arthur Martin, was appointed by the sheriff of Tehama County to the position of deputy sheriff, but respondent, George M. De Shields, as auditor of said county, refused to draw his warrant on the county treasurer in the sum of
[341]
$108.33 for petitioner’s salary for the month of November, 1920. The contentions of the parties are the same as those made in
Jones
v.
De Shields, supra.
[1]
In section 1 of article IV of the charter of Tehama County (Stats. 1917, p. 1883) it is provided as follows: “The salary of the sheriff as sheriff and coroner shall be two thousand four hundred dollars per annum, and he may be allowed deputies at not to exceed one thousand three hundred dollars per annum.” As was held in
Jones
v.
Be Shields, supra,
an allowance to the chief deputy or other deputy as salary for the services of such deputy is violative of the constitutional provision which requires that the power to fix the number and compensation of deputies must be vested by the charter in the board of supervisors. The situation, however, presented by the provision of the charter relating to the salary of the sheriff is different. The provision with reference to the salary of deputies is a part of the provision fixing the compensation of the sheriff as authorized by subdivision 2 of section 7½ of article XI of the constitution. (See
Dougherty
v.
Austin,
94 Cal. 601, [16 L. R. A. 161, 28 Pac. 834, 29 Pac. 1092].) It is as though the provision had read: “The compensation of the sheriff shall be two thousand four hundred dollars per annum and the pay of his necessary deputies to the extent of one thousand three hundred dollars per annum.” If part of the provision must fall it is clear that all must fall, with the result that the charter would be without any valid provision at all as to .the compensation of the sheriff. This would relegate the sheriff to his salary under the general law.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)