Gross v. Kenfield
Gross v. Kenfield
Opinion of the Court
The petitioner was elected Clerk of the Supreme Court under a clause of § 10, art. xxii, of the Constitution, which
The same reason exists against increasing or diminishing the compensation of the present incumbent during his term of office as will exist against increasing or diminishing the compensation of his successor during his term of office. And it seems to us that the constitutional prohibition applies as well to the one elected at the first, as it will to those elected at subsequent elections, under the present Constitution. And if so, it follows that § 755 of the Political Code as amended by the Act of April 23rd, 1881, is inoperative as to the compensation to be paid to the clerk of the Supreme Court whose term of office had commenced before the date of said" enactment j and that said clerk is entitled to receive the compensation as fixed by the law in force at the date of the commencement of his term of office.
Let the peremptory writ of mandate issue, as prayed for in the petition..
Reference
- Full Case Name
- T. W. GROSS v. D. M. KENFIELD
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Salary of Officers—Constitutional Law.—The constitutional provision against altering the compensation of an officer during his term applies to those officers elected at the first election after the adoption of the Constitution, whose salaries were fixed by previous laws.