County of Los Angeles v. Lamb

Citations

• 61 Cal. 196
• 1882 Cal. LEXIS 577

Syllabus

<p>Constitutionality of Statute—Bees of Office—Los Angeles County. Prior to the Act of March 27, 1878, “to regulate fees and salaries in the County of Los Angeles ” the fees of office were received by the officers to their own use, but by that Act it was provided that certain officers of that County (including the Recorder) should receive salaries for .their services and that all fees collected should be paid into the County Treasury for the use of the County; but it was provided that these provisions should not apply to the then incumbent. The term of the Recorder then in office did not expire until March, 1880; at which time the term of office of the defendant, who had been elected Recorder, commenced; and he, having failed to pay into the County Treasury certain fees of office this action was brought for their recovery.</p> <p>Held': The statute was a perfect law and went into effect when it was passed.</p> <p>Id.—Id. —Cases Distinguished.—The statutes passed on and declared to be unconstitutional in the case of Peachy v. Board of Supervisors, 59 Cal. 548, and Speegle y. Joy, 60 id. 278, are entirely different from this. In those statutes it was specially provided—as far as the matters involved in those cases were concerned—that the Act should not go into effect until a future day.</p>