From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santa Barbara v. Sherman

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1882
61 Cal. 57 (Cal. 1882)

Opinion

         Department Two

         Appeal from a judgment for defendants in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara. Hatch, J.

         COUNSEL

         This is not a criminal prosecution for a public offense. (President & c. v. Holland , 19 Ill. 271; People v. Johnson , 30 Cal. 104.) If not clearly a civil action, it is at most but quasi criminal. (Sec. 344, Dill. on Mun. Corp., vol. 1 and notes; Davenport v. Bird, 34 Iowa 524; Williamson v. Com., 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 146.)

          Thos. McNulta, for Appellant.

          W. C. Stratton, for Respondent.


         This is a criminal action--actions are of two kinds. ( C. C.P. 22, 24.)

         OPINION          The Court:

         This action is in no sense a civil action. The complaint demands that defendants be adjudged guilty of violating ordinance No. 62, and that they be punished by fine and imprisonment. If it be an action, it is criminal, and should have been prosecuted in the name of The People. ( Sec. 684, Penal Code.) It is not necessary to notice the other points presented.

         The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.


Summaries of

Santa Barbara v. Sherman

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1882
61 Cal. 57 (Cal. 1882)
Case details for

Santa Barbara v. Sherman

Case Details

Full title:THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA v. C. E. SHERMAN et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1882

Citations

61 Cal. 57 (Cal. 1882)

Citing Cases

Woods v. Varnum

The action should have been brought in the name of the people. ( Pen. Code, sec. 684; City of Santa Barbara…

People v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

It is argued that the term "municipal fine" as used in the constitutional provision above quoted includes…