In City of Ukiah v. Fones (1966) 64 Cal.2d 104, the Supreme Court considered "whether a stipulation entered into by a discharged civil service employee, stating that if his discharge was wrongful he was entitled to back salary for the period prior to the filing of the complaint, may be deemed a waiver by him of all wages to which he would have been entitled for the period subsequent to that date until reinstatement or retirement." ( Id. at p. 106.) The court concluded that there was no waiver; absent express evidence of waiver, the "well settled rule that a civil service employee who has been unlawfully deprived of his position is entitled to recover the full amount of the salary which accrued to him from the date of his unlawful discharge to the date of his reinstatement" applies. ( Id. at p. 107.) In that case, Justice Mosk referred favorably to the language of Justice Spence in Estate of Coffin (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 469: "It is well settled that the right to a family allowance is strongly favored in our law and that it will not be held to have been waived or relinquished except where the language relied upon clearly and explicitly manifests that intention. We find no such language in the stipulation above set forth. It clearly appears that the parties intended to stipulate for the payment of a family allowance 'at said rate for a period not to exceed ten months', but it is not at all clear that the parties intended that said stipulation should thereafter bind anyone either as to amount or as to time. If appellants intended that the stipulation should constitute a waiver by respondent of the right to any family allowance after the expiration of a period of ten months, there was at least uncertainty in the language employed to accomplish their purpose and 'any uncertainty in the language of the agreement will be resolved in favor of the right'. "