From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heinlen v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of California
Dec 10, 1883
64 Cal. 378 (Cal. 1883)

Opinion

         PETITION for a writ of mandate, commanding the respondents, as judges of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, to appoint a board of police commissioners for the city.

         COUNSEL:

         Heinlen, and Baggett, for Petitioners.


         OPINION

         PER CURIAM.

         In Bank

         The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

         Conceding that the terms of office of the police commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco have expired, the power of appointment does not devolve upon the judges of the Superior Court for the city and county aforesaid.

         The power of appointment of the commissioners referred to vested in the judges of the fifteenth, twelfth, and fourth judicial districts of this State by the Act of April, 1878, was not a judicial power, and did not pertain to the judicial system of the State; consequently it was not continued in force by section 11 of article xxii. of the Constitution now in force, and the power of appointment in question did not devolve upon the superior judges above mentioned.

         Application for writ of mandate denied.


Summaries of

Heinlen v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of California
Dec 10, 1883
64 Cal. 378 (Cal. 1883)
Case details for

Heinlen v. Sullivan

Case Details

Full title:G. A. HEINLEN ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. J. T. SULLIVAN ET AL., JUDGES, ETC.…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 10, 1883

Citations

64 Cal. 378 (Cal. 1883)
1 P. 158

Citing Cases

People ex rel. Pixley v. Pond

There has been no vacancy in the office. (People ex rel. Hinton v. Hammond , 66 Cal. 655; Heinlen v. Sullivan…

People ex rel. Menzies v. Gunst

A judgment rendered in an action is conclusive upon the questions involved in the action, and upon which it…