Bloom v. Hazzard

California Supreme Court Oct 2, 1894 No. No. 19424Published

Before: Belcher, Fitzgerald, Haven, Haynes, McFarland, Searls

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a written agreement between a constable and a litigant to accept a reduced fee for services is a binding contract and is not void as against public policy.

Issues

Whether a written agreement signed by a constable to accept reduced fees for services is a binding contract.
Whether an agreement by a public officer to accept less than statutory fees for services is void as against public policy.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It was an agreement in writing, signed and delivered by him to the defendant. It was accepted by defendant, and was acted upon by both parties. This was a sufficient execution to make the writing a binding obligation”

“The agreement was not intended to work any fraud or wrong upon any party; and so far as appears it cannot be classed as malum in se or malum prohibitum.”

“there was no violation of public policy in his agreeing to take less than his legal fees.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, and from an order refusing a new trial.-

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Belcher, C. The plaintiff, as assignee of one Charles M. Stetson, brought this action to recover the sum of $844.90, balance alleged to be due and unpaid for services rendered by Stetson as constable in the levying upon and sale of certain real property under an execution issued upon a justice’s court judgment in favor of the defendant.

Before any services were rendered Stetson executed and delivered to defendant an agreement in writing, reading as follows:

[311]“San Diego, Cal., Sept. 21, 1891.

“I, Charles M. Stetson, constable of San Diego township, California, agree that I will levy on the land herein described under the attached execution at the rate of $5 per day that I am actually employed at it; charging, however, in my return the full charges and fees allowed by law. George W. Hazzard is, howmver, not to pay more for my work than said five dollars per day, and ten dollars for making the return.

[signed] “ Charles M. Stetson,

“Constable S. D. Township.

“Alrred E. Cowles,

“Deputy Constable.”

Stetson, by his deputy, made the levy and sale, and was engaged in the work ten and one-half days. The defendant bid in the property for $1,248.10, and the return shows that the constable’s fees amounted to the sum of $928.90. On October 29, 1891, defendant paid to Stetson, or his deputy, $59.85, and of this sum $52.50 was to pay for said ten and one-half days’ work at the agreed price of $5 per day, and $7.35 was to pay certain extra expenses. Afterwards, on November 2d, defendant paid Stetson $10, and received from him a receipt reading as follows:

“San Diego, Cal., November 2, 1891.

“Received of George W. Hazzard the sum of $10 in full for fees in the case of George W. Hazzard v. Santa Rosa Land and Improvement Company.

“ Charles M. Stetson,

“Constable San Diego Township.”

The court found that “said Stetson received and accepted said several sums of money, aggregating in the whole the sum of $69.85, in full of all demands which he had against the defendant on account of his said services; and that said payments were made by defendant to said Stetson before said Stetson had made the assignment of his pretended claim to plaintiff, and that

Bloom v. Hazzard

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief