Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Cal. 502

Harris v. More

California Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 1886

California Supreme Court · decided 1886-08-28

The action was brought to recover for certain services performed under an agreement stated in the opinion. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1921

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““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.” (p. 503.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Marsh v. Wells Fargo & Co. Express

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-08-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Myrick, J.

¶1The 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

¶2' 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.

¶3No error appears in the transcript.

¶4Judgment and order affirmed.

¶5McKinstey, J., andMoKEisoN, C. J., concurred.

¶6Hearing in Bank denied.

/70/cal/502 · .json · Public domain