Harris v. More
EMIL HARRIS v. A. P. MORE
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Milton H. Myrick (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 — Myrick
Myrick, J.
The defendants executed an agreement in writing to pay moneys to any person furnishing evidence which would lead to the conviction of persons implicated in the commission of a crime. The agreement was delivered to the plaintiff. It contained a clause agreeing to pay plaintiff certain expenses in investigat- • ing the matter of the offense. The plaintiff rendered services in regard to discovering evidence and causing the same to be produced at the trial. The plaintiff was deputy sheriff of Los Angeles County, and the offense was committed and the trial had in another county ' As the plaintiff had no legal duty to perform, by virtue of his office of deputy sheriff, in regard to discovering the evidence and causing it to be produced, having no writ to execute, and the offense having been committed and the trial had out of his county, we do not think the policy of the law forbade his receiving the compensation. It was not compensation for the performance of any duty enjoined upon him by law.
No error appears in the transcript.
Judgment and order affirmed.
McKinstey, J., andMoKEisoN, C. J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.