Cooley v. County of Calaveras
Before: Searls
Synopsis
Appeal — Conclusiveness of Findings—Agreed Statement of Facts.— . Where the cause was submitted to the decision of the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts, but the agreed statement is not set out in the record, the findings made by the court are conclusive.
Fees of Justice of Peace—Settlement with County Under Act of 1895 —Claims Under County Government Act.—A settlement by a justice of the peace with a county for his fees in criminal cases, pursuant to the act of March 28, 1895, and prior to the decision of the supreme court declaring that act unconstitutional, cannot be revoked, and a claim for such fees cannot be subsequently allowed by the board of supervisors under the County Government Act, merely crediting thereupon the amount previously paid under the act of 1895.
Id.—Understanding of Law at Date of Settlement Conclusive.—The understanding of the law at the time of the settlement of a contract, though erroneous, will govern the settlement, and the subsequent determination of the question of law by judicial decision to the contrary does not create such a mistake of law as courts will rectify, nor can it have a retroactive effect to overturn the settlement which was legal and valid when made.
Id.—Entire Demand cannot be Split.—A party having an entire demand cannot split it up into separate causes of action; and this rule applies to claims against counties equally with those against individuals.
SEARLS, C. Action brought to recover from the county of Calaveras the sum of five hundred and sixty-one dollars and eighty cents, a balance claimed to be due the plaintiff as fees and compensation for services as justice of the peace in and for Angels township, in said county. The defendant had judgment for costs. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and the cause comes up on the judgment-roll.
The cause was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts. This agreed statement is not set out in the record, hence the facts as found by the court are conclusive. The facts so found are, so far as necessary to the questions involved, as follows: 1. Plaintiff was a justice of the peace in and for the township of Angels, county of Calaveras; 2. As such justice of the peace plaintiff, between April 2, 1895, and December 28, 1896, in pursuance of his judicial duties, heard and determined one hundred and fifty-five criminal actions or proceedings on examination or trial properly before him; 3. That as such justice of the peace plaintiff was entitled to receive of and from the defendant county, in each of the said actions or proceedings, the sum of three dollars, aggregating, in all the amount of four hundred and sixty-five dollars; 4.; [484]That prior to the twenty-fifth day of February, 1897, and prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiff presented to the-board of supervisors of the defendant county his claims in due form, and properly verified by his oath as to their correctness, for each and every of said one hundred and fifty-five (155). criminal actions or proceedings tried or examined by him as aforesaid, aggregating in all the sum of four hundred and sixty-five dollars; 5. The board of supervisors duly passed upon and allowed each and every of said claims for the full amount of fees demanded by plaintiff, to wit, the sum of three dollars in each of said actions or proceedings tried, etc., as aforesaid; 6. Each and every of said claims so presented and allowed as aforesaid were by the county treasurer of the defendant county duly paid to plaintiff, and “that a complete settlement between plaintiff and defendant county was had thereon”; 7. On the twenty-fifth day of February, 1897, the plaintiff as such justice filed additional claims in all of said one hundred and fifty-five cases, etc., for which he had presented his claims as aforesaid, and which had been allowed and paid as aforesaid, in which he claimed in the same cases as follows: For complaint, two dollars; issuing warrant, two dollars; trial of each case, three dollars; aggregating in each case seven dollars. In each case plaintiff credited the county with the three dollars previously paid him thereon as aforesaid; 8. The board of supervisors rejected said claims; 9. The defendant county is not indebted to defendant in any sum.
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)