85 Cal. 593
Milner v. Reibenstein
California Supreme Court · decided 1890-09-10
<p>Charter of Stockton — Municipal Court — City Justice of the Peace — Ex Officio Judge. — Under the charter of the city of Stockton of March, 1889, framed and adopted under constitutional amendment No. 6, providing for a municipal court to be held and presided over by a city justice of the peace appointed by the mayor, the police court under the old charter and the court of the city justice of the peace were practically consolidated by adding the duties theretofore performed by the police court, to the court of the city justice, giving it a clerk and seal, and making it a court of record, which the charter declares shall not be deemed a new court, but a continuation of the courts theretofore existing; and the appointment of the city justice as judge of the municipal court gives him no new term, and no new office, but simply makes him ex officio judge of the new court.</p> <p>Id. — Salary of Municipal Judge. —It was not intended by such charter to increase the salary of the city justice upon becoming judge of the municipal court, or to add a new salary as such judge to that which pertained to his office as city justice, but it was the evident intent of the framers of the charter to reduce the compensation of the city justice; and he cannot draw or receive an additional salary as ex officio judge of the municipal court. (Beatty, O. J., dissenting.)</p> <p>Id. — Constitutional Law — Change of Salary. — The compensation of the city justice of the peace, who is an officer provided for by the constitution, being fixed by general law, as prescribed in section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can only be changed by an amendment of that code, and not by charter provision, and can neither be increased nor diminished during the term of an incumbent, or by any special or local legislation; and the city justice designated as judge of the municipal court of Stockton, whose term of office began prior to the adoption of the city charter, can claim his full salary as city justice under the code, notwithstanding the intent of the charter to reduce his salary.</p>
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1933
3 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1890-09-10