California Supreme Court, 1894

Walser v. Austin

California Supreme Court · Decided September 17, 1894 · Fitzgeuald, Haven, McFarland

104 Cal. 128; 37 P. 869; 1894 Cal. LEXIS 865

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Wines v. Garrison (Cal. 1923)
Newman v. Lester (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

De Haven, J.

It was held in the case of Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 219, that subdivision 21 of section 170 *130of the- County Government' Act, approved March 31, 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 295), contains local and special legislation, and is in conflict with section 5 of article XI of the constitution of the state, which directs that the legislature by general and uniform laws shall provide for the election or appointment in the several counties of such county, township, and municipal officers “as public convenience may require, and shall prescribe their duties and fix their terms of office.” We can add nothing to the reasoning by which that conclusion was reached, and upon the authority of that case the judgment and order herein must be affirmed.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Fitzgeuald, J., concurred.

Concurring Opinion

McFarland, J.

I concur in the judgment solely upon the authority of Welsh v. Bramlet, 98 Cal. 219, and Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 601, in which cases I could not concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.