Hansen v. Waring

California Court of Appeal Feb 15, 1954 No. Civ. No. 15556Published

Before: Dooling

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that deputy clerks of a superseded justice's court were not entitled to retain their previous salaries in the new municipal court, as the specific salary schedule established by the 1951 statute controlled over the general provisions of the 1949 Municipal and Justice Court Act.

Issues

Whether deputy clerks of a superseded court are entitled to retain their prior salary levels upon transitioning to a new municipal court under the Municipal and Justice Court Act of 1949.
Whether the specific salary provisions of the 1951 statute supersede the general 'similar compensation' requirements of the 1949 Act.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It seems perfectly clear that the Legislature intended the minimum to be the starting salary, unless the employee had one or more years prior service in the superseded office.”

“Where the Legislature has, as here, fixed a lower salary scale for the new positions the assignment of appellants to those positions is “as far as practical” a compliance with this provision.”

DOOLING, J. This case is presented on an agreed statement on appeal and the only question is one of statutory construction.

Appellant Seyman was appointed a deputy clerk of the Berkeley Justice’s Court on September 13, 1951; appellant Hubbs received a like appointment on September 24, 1951; and appellant Hansen was appointed to a like position on December 16, 1951. On January 1, 1952, the Berkeley Justice’s Court was superseded by the Municipal Court for the Berkeley-Alb any Judicial District. At the time the Berkeley Justice’s Court was so superseded each appellant was receiving a salary of $275 per month.

By chapter 1704, Statutes of 1951 (p. 3916) the Legislature provided, so far as material here:

‘1 Section 1. The municipal court established in a district embracing the Cities of Berkeley and. Albany shall be constituted, and the judges, officers and attaches thereof shall receive compensation, as follows:

“(2) There shall be one clerk . . . who may appoint the following:

‘1 One deputy clerk, who shall receive a minimum salary of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) monthly with annual increments of ten dollars ($10) to a maximum of three hundred dollars ($300) monthly;

“Four deputy clerks, each of whom shall receive a minimum salary of two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225) monthly with annual increments of ten dollars ($10) to a maximum of two hundred seventy-five dollars ($275) monthly;

“(3) Persons who succeed to positions in the municipal court under provisions of the Municipal and Justice Court Act of 1949 shall receive credit for continuous prior service in superseded courts and shall receive, in addition to the minimum rate, the annual increments commensurate with such years of prior service up to the maximum rate set.”

Appellant Seyman was appointed to the position of deputy clerk of the new municipal court carrying the minimum salary [167]of $250 per month and the other appellants to two of the four such positions carrying a minimum salary of $225 per month. Since none of them had a year’s service in the superseded court, each was paid only the minimum salary. They sought a writ of mandate to compel the payment to each of them of $275 per month, the salary that they had been receiving in the superseded justice’s court. Judgment went against them.

Hansen v. Waring

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief