Selkirk v. Board of Supervisors
California Supreme Court
Selkirk v. Board of Supervisors, 3 Cal. 323 (Cal. 1853)
Heydenfeldt
Selkirk v. Board of Supervisors
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court. Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.
One of the effects of the demurrer, is, to admit the truth of the facts alleged.
While, therefore, it is conceded that the supervisors have discretionary power to allow the claim, and determine the amount of compensation, they cannot be permitted in the same breath, to admit the right to compensation, and then refuse to grant it.
The demurrer should therefore be overruled, and the respondents required to answer, in order that the District Court may determine whether they had exercised the jurisdiction with which the law invests them, and have heard and determined the claipi of the petitioner according to their legal discretion.
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- SELKIRK v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- An application for a mandamus, set forth, as the ground of this application, certain services and a claim for compensation, performed under the authority of an act of the legislature, by plaintiff, and that he had submitted his account to defendants (appointed by law to audit and allow like accounts) to be audited and allowed, who had refused to act in the premises. Defendants demurred to the application, and alleged as ground, that they did not see fit to allow the claim for compensation, which was a matter of discretion for them: Held, that the effect of the demurrer was to admit the truth of the facts alleged, and that while defendants had discretionary power to determine the amount of compensation, they cannot be permitted, in the same breath, to admit the right to compensation, and then refuse to grant it.