McPhail v. Jefferds — 130 Cal. 480

Majority

p. 480

[Sac. Nos. 728, 729, 730, 756.

Department Two.

November 10, 1900.]

ALTA McPHAIL, Respondent, v. E. M. JEFFERDS, Auditor, etc., Appellant. T. E. CLARK, Respondent, v. E. M. JEFFERDS, Auditor, etc., Appellant. W. M. De WITT, Respondent, v. E. M. JEFFERDS, Auditor, etc., Appellant. GEORGE L. BLISS, Respondent, v. E. M. JEFFERDS, Auditor, etc., Appellant.

Headnote

Public Officers—Deputies — County of Eleventh Class — County Government Acts of 1893 and 1897.—The deputy district attorneys, the deputy county superintendent, and the deputy county clerk

p. 481

of a county of the eleventh class, which officers were provided for by section 173 of the County Government Act of 1893 and their salaries fixed, and who were in office at the time of the enactment of the County Government Act of 1897, remain entitled, under section 233 of the latter act, to the payment of their salaries by the county. The latter act does not contemplate that their salaries should be paid by their respective principals.

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Tulare County in appeals numbered Sac. 728, 729, and 730, and from a judgment of said court and from an order denying a new trial in appeal numbered Sac. 756. W. B. Wallace, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion, and in the opinion in Ellis v. Jejferds, ante, p. 478.

J. A. Allen, and George G. Murry, for Appellants.

William W. Cross, F. B. Howard, and T. E. Clark, for Respondents in Appeals Numbered Sac. 729 and 730.

Charles G. Lamberson, and M. E. Power, for Respondents in Appeals Numbered Sac. 728 and 756.

These cases were submitted by stipulation, along with Ellis v. Jefferds, ante, p. 478, on briefs on file. The only difference between the cases is that the plaintiffs here are 'deputy officers, viz., Clark and De Witt deputy district attorneys, McPhail deputy county superintendent, and Bliss deputy county clerk. We do not, however, regard •this difference as material. Under section 173 of the act of 1893 these deputies are all provided for, and. their salaries fixed.

Under the act of 1897, by section 59, which is a re-enactment of section 61 of the old act, the new officers have the same power as before to appoint deputies. But by section 215 they are to be paid by their principals, whose salaries are increased. The office is, therefore, not abolished, but the compensation of the deputies, is changed. Their case, therefore, comes fairly under the language of section 233, and certainly within the intention of the act. To deprive the incumbent district attorney of his paid deputies, and to require him to pay for

p. 482

necessary assistance out of Ms own pocket, would be very materially to “affect” Mm. . I

The eases, we think, cannot be distingMshed from the principal case, and on the authority of that case the judgments and orders appealed from are affirmed. ,