Jobson v. Fennell
DAVID JOBSON v. MARTIN FENNELL
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Silas S. Sanderson (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Sanderson
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
The general rule of the common law is, that officers who exercise judicial functions cannot act by deputy, but those who exercise merely ministerial functions may, without express authority to that effect. Accordingly, it was early settled that a Sheriff, in the exercise of his ministerial fune*713tions, could act by deputy; but otherwise, in respect to his judicial functions, because no express authority to that effect was given in his patent. (Gwynne on Sheriffs, 38.) So in respect to Constables. (Medhurst v. Waite, 3 Burr, 1,259; Rex v. Clarke, 1 Dunford and East. 679; Willcock on Constables, 17, 15; 13 Law Library, N. S.)
The statute of this State in relation to Constables is silent as to the appointment of deputies. (Stats. 1850, p. 263.) Such being the case, the rule of the common law applies, and it has accordingly been held that Constables may act by deputy in the exercise of their ministerial functions. (Taylor v. Brown, 4 Cal. 188.)
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.
Cites, in this corpus
- Taylor v. Brown · 1854-04-15
Cited by
- Wines v. Garrison S. F. No. 10513. · 1923-03-21
- Wright v. Laugenour No. 6,571 · 1880-07-01