Ryan v. Johnson

California Supreme Court
Ryan v. Johnson, 5 Cal. 86 (Cal. 1855)
Heydenfeldt

Ryan v. Johnson

Opinion of the Court

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The Act to prevent extortion in office, Cod. Laws, 214, is not liable to objection on the ground of any conflict with the Constitution. The defendant may, by virtue of the last section of the Act, have a jury trial as well in that, as in any other action.

Nor is the respondent’s objection well founded jo the Act regulating Fees in Office. It is not an Act of a general nature, within the meaning of the Constitution—it is entirely of a specific character.

The demurrer ought to have been overruled.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name
EDWARD J. RYAN v. RICHARD M. JOHNSON
Cited By
5 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
The Act to prevent extortion in office, does not conflict with the Constitution. The Act regulating Fees in Office, is not an Act of a general nature, 'within the meaning of the Constitution. It is entirely of a specific character.