From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. More

Supreme Court of California
Aug 28, 1886
70 Cal. 502 (Cal. 1886)


         Department One

         Hearing in Bank denied.

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, and from an order refusing a new trial.


         Thomas McNulta, A. A. Oglesby, and W. E. Shepherd, for Appellant.

          W. T. Williams, and W. C. Stratton, for Respondent.

         JUDGES: Myrick, J. McKinstry, J., and Morrison, C. J., concurred.


          MYRICK, Judge

         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 investigating 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.

Summaries of

Harris v. More

Supreme Court of California
Aug 28, 1886
70 Cal. 502 (Cal. 1886)
Case details for

Harris v. More

Case Details

Full title:EMIL HARRIS, Respondent, v. A. P. MORE, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 28, 1886


70 Cal. 502 (Cal. 1886)
11 P. 780

Citing Cases

Rendell v. Scott

         THE COURT           [11 P. 780] The defendants by their cross-complaint sought to have set…

Lees v. Colgan

The petitioner was entitled to receive the reward offered by the governor. (Annotated Pen. Code, sec. 1547;…