Citation Numbers: 17 Cal. 137
Judges: Baldwin
Filed Date: 7/1/1860
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
The record in this case, which was quo warranto, involving title to the office of Superintendent of Public Streets and Highways of the city and county of San Francisco, shows the following facts :
At the general election of 1856, one R. C. Devoe was elected by the voters of the county to the office ; he held the office until 1858, when Hossefross was elected, and afterwards in 1859 reelected; and the latter has been holding ever since; and now claims the office by virtue of this last election. At the last general election (1860) relator, Bohen, received a majority of the votes cast for this office, and was legally elected to it, if an election at that time was valid.
This office was created by the Consolidation Act, applicable to the city and county of San Francisco, passed nineteenth of April, 1856. By the sixth section of this act it is provided, that “ there shall be elected hereafter, for said city and county of San Fran
By the schedule annexed to and made part of this act, it is provided, (Section 3) : “ Until the next general election, the present County Surveyor of the county of San Francisco shall act as Superintendent of Public Streets and Highways, with the powers, duties and compensation, etc.”
Section eight provides: “At the next general election to be held
Nothing is said in the schedule as to the duration of the term to be filled at this election. 4
Section six of the Act of 1856 was amended by the Act of 1857, (Session Acts, 210) but the same provision as to the time and mode of elections exists, unaltered in form; the words “ at the times and mode prescribed by law for the election of State and county officers ” being retained.
The question turns upon the construction of the language of the sixth section, taken in connection with the matter already given. The argument of the respondent is, that this phrase “ election for State and county officers,” refers to the biennial elections fixed by law, for filling the State offices, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, etc. But we think this was not the meaning attached by the Legislature to these terms. Nothing more was meant than the general or annual election. It is not perceived why the filling of this office for the allotted term was to be postponed until the year 1857. The phrase employed was not designed to be descriptive of a particular election, or to confine the filling of the office to the action of the electors at this biennial election, but merely to indicate the period of election as that at which State and county officers might he elected; for, on the happening of vacancies, etc., State officers may be elected at any general annual election. Besides, the term “ State officers” is a general term, applicable, probably, as well to members of the Legislature as to a Governor and other officers elected by the body of the electors of the State. But if the phrase meant only an election to be had for such State officers as a Governor, etc., why use the term, “ and county officers ? ” Moreover, the sixth section provides for the election of one Inspector and two Judges of Election; and these are to hold office/or one year. How
. Again, the schedule provides for an election, at the general election in 1856, for this office, and nothing is said as to the term. The inference would seem to be that the term is to be for the full term provided for the office, where that office is made elective, and to be filled by the people at a general election. Why should it be supposed that the Legislature meant to provide two popular elections to fill one office for the appointed term, and that term of such short duration ?
We think, for these and other reasons, that the office was filled for the whole term of two years, at the general election of 1856.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.