Case Name: THOMAS CUNNINGHAM v. THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1874
Citations: 49 Cal. 323
Docket Number: No. 3,987
Parties: THOMAS CUNNINGHAM v. THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 323–325

Head Matter:
[No. 3,987.]
THOMAS CUNNINGHAM v. THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN.
Mileage op Sherbet and Constable.—A Sheriff or Constable, under the Statute of 1870, for executing a warrant of arrest, is entitled to mileage, both for the distance traveled in going to make the arrest, and for that traveled from the place of arrest to the magistrate. They are also entitled to mileage for distance traveled outside the county in making an arrest, and in taking the prisoner toward a magistrate.
Appeae from the District Court, County of San Joaquin.
The plaintiff was Sheriff of the county of San Joaquin, and, after March 6, 1872, executed several warrants for the arrest of persons charged with crime. He presented, for allowance, to the Board of Supervisors, an account for these services, in which he charged mileage not only for the distance traveled in going to make the arrest, but for that traveled in conveying the prisoner from the place of arrest to the magistrate who issued the warrant. The Board rejected that part of the account which was for mileage in taking prisoners from the place of arrest to the magistrate.
One Langmaid was a Constable in said county, and, as such, received a warrant of arrest, and, to execute the same, traveled a number of miles outside of San Joaquin County, and in Tuolumne County. He traveled in Tuolumne County five miles in going to make the arrest, and five miles in returning. The Board of Supervisors disallowed that part of Langmaid’s account which was for travel outside San Joaquin County, and for travel in San Joaquin County in taking the prisoner from the place of arrest to the magistrate. He then assigned his demand to the plaintiff who commened this action in the District Court to recover the demands. The Court below held that the Sheriff was not entitled to mileage for taking a prisoner from the place of arrest to the magistrate or to prison, and that the Constable was not entitled to mileage outside -the county, either in going or returning, and was not entitled to mileage for taking a prisoner from the place of arrest to prison, or to the magistrate, and rendered judgment accordingly.
The other facts are stated in the dissenting opinion.
The plaintiff appealed.
W. L. Dudley and W. S. Montgomery, for the Appellant.
E. S. Pillsbury, for the Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court, McKinstry, J.:
The "executing a warrant of arrest" and the "taking a prisoner before a magistrate" are mentioned in the statute as separate and distinct acts.
The words "in going only" which immediately precede the words "in executing any warrant of arrest," cannot be held to apply to the taking of a prisoner before the magistrate, except as applicable to the distance traveled from the place of the arrest to the magistrate, and the officer making the arrest was entitled to his mileage for that distance.
The officer was entitle to his mileage (outside of San Joaquin county) in going to make an arrest and in taking a prisoner toward the magistrate.
Judgment reversed. The District Court will enter a judgment in accordance with the foregoing.