Case ID: cal-unrep_5/html/0568-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.—In", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHNSTON v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
    L. A. No. 217;
    January 8, 1897.
    47 Pac. 374.
    Constables.—The Compensation of a Constable is Regulated by the provisions of the county government act (Stats. 1893, p. 390); and the provision limiting the amount of compensation he shall receive is valid.
    APPEAL from Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Waldo M. York, Judge.
    Action by J. H. Johnston against the county of Los Angeles. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Jones & Newby and Jos. F. Chambers for appellant; J. A. Donnell, district attorney, and F. R. Willis for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.—In

Dwyer v. Parker, 115 Cal. 544, 47 Pac. 372, it was held that the provisions of the “Act to establish the fees of county and township, and other officers, and jurors and witnesses, within this state” (Stats. 1895, p. 267), so far as the same attempt to fix the compensation of the officers therein named, are unconstitutional. The compensation of the appellant, as constable of Los Angeles township, is fixed by subdivision 14 of section 164 of the county government act of 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 390). By the provisions of that section he is not authorized to receive any greater amount than is admitted in his complaint herein has been received by him for the services for which his present claim is made. We have no doubt of the constitutional power of the legislature to limit the amount of compensation which any officer shall receive for the performance of the duties of his office. The judgment is affirmed.