Skip to main content
· 7/1/1859

Saunders v. Haynes

Citations

  • 13 Cal. 145

Syllabus

<p>The Act giving jurisdiction over the subject of contested elections to the Judge of the County Court, is constitutional, and District Judges are embraced within it.</p> <p>This is one of the “special cases,” of which the Constitution provides, that the County Judge may take cognizance when authorized by the Legislature.</p> <p>The fact that the candidate receiving the highest number of votes at an election by the people, is ineligible, does not give the office to the next highest on the list.</p> <p>In a proceeding to contest the election of defendant as District Judge, the ineligibility of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes, the defendant being next on the list, is no defense—because this matter, if true, could not protect the incumbent from the consequences of an unauthorized possession of the office.</p> <p>Quere: Whether the place or employment of Inspector of Customs is a lucrative office, under the United States, within the Constitution of this State.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that attorney’s brothers-in-law were not rendered personally liable in settlement of attorney’s accounts when the agreement described the brothers-in-law as “agents of” the attorney

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baldwin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.