Domingos v. Board of Supervisors
Synopsis
Pat of Sotervisok.'—A member of a board of supervisors cannot be interested in or receive pay for ■work done on any contract growing out of or connected with public works or improvements.
Effect of an Act of the Legirlatubjs.—-If a claim against a county is barred by the Statute of Limitations, and the legislature passes an act requiring the board of supervisors to act upon and reject or allow it, notwithstanding the bar of the statute, the act does not have the effect of legalizing the claim, if it is illegal.
By the Court:
Assuming in favor of the plaintiff that the act of March 25, 1874, removed the bar against the claim of the plaintiff, arising by lapse of time and failure to present the same, it did nothing more than that.
The board were still, under the provisions of that act, to allow or reject the claim, as in other cases, and in determining its validity, they were referred to the general statutes upon the subject. Among these were the act of March 20, 1855, and the amendment approved April 29, 1857, providing that no member of the board of supervisors should be interested in any contract growing out of, or connected with public works or improvements, or other purposes.
Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed, and cause remanded.
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)