Skip to main content
· 2/3/1891

Yarnell v. City of Los Angeles

Citations

  • 87 Cal. 603
  • 25 P. 767

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional Daw — Municipal Charter — Depositary op Public Moneys — Banks.-—The provisions of section 44 of the charter of Los Angeles (approved January 31, 1889), which direct the city council to appoint as depositary of the public moneys the bank offering the highest rate of interest thereon, and further providing that the council shall direct the city treasurer to deposit with the bank daily all public moneys of the city by him collected or received, is unconstitutional and void.</p> <p>Id.—Delegation of Power to Control Municipal Funds. — Section 13 of article 11 of the constitution, forbidding the legislature to delegate to any special commission, private corporation, company, association, or individual any power to control or in any way interfere with any county, city, town, or municipal money, forbids the delegation of power to a municipal corporation to do what the legislature is forbidden to do, there being no such power of delegation expressly conferred by the constitution.</p> <p>Id. — Construction of Constitution — Legal Depositary— Loan of Public Money.— Section 16 of article 11 of the constitution, requiring that all moneys of any municipal corporation coming into the hands of any officer thereof shall immediately be deposited with the treasurer, “or other legal depositary,” etc., is intended to designate only the public officer who is the legal custodian of the municipal funds, and does not include a private individual or corporation in the phrase “legal depositary,” or authorize the relation of debtor and creditor to be established between the city and a bank by a loan to it of the public money.</p> <p>Id.—Making Profit from Public Money — Bank, as Public Officer.— A contract by a municipal corporation making the bank which will pay the highest rate of interest a depositary of the public moneys of the city, if it could be held to make the bank a public officer under the municipal charter, is in violation of section 17 of article 11 of the const

How courts have described this case

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

  • disbarring attorney who failed to file pleadings for, respond to, or refund fees to clients
  • disbarring attorney who failed to file pleadings for, respond to, or refund fees to clients

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McFarland

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.