Shaw v. City & County of San Francisco

HALL, J.

Plaintiff, in his own right, and as the assignee of forty-six other persons, brought an action to recover the total sum of $5,600, as the reasonable value of services rendered by plaintiff and Ms several assignors, as deputy registrars of voters of the city aud county of San Francisco under

[548]

appointments made by resolution adopted by the board of election commissioners of said city and county in regular session assembled. (In this opinion plaintiff and his assignors will hereafter be referred to as the plaintiffs.)

Plaintiffs recovered judgment as prayed for, and this is an appeal from such judgment, taken upon the judgment-roll.

It appears from the findings that the positions to which plaintiffs were appointed had been duly included by the civil service commissioners of the city and county within the civil service commission system, and that in accordance therewith appointments to such positions should and could only be made from the list of civil service eligibles for the class or grade to which the positions belonged. It further appears that the plaintiffs were appointed in entire disregard of the civil service provisions of the charter. None of them even took the competitive examination required by, the charter, and the name of no one of said plaintiffs was upon the register or list of civil service eligibles. In fact, no attempt was made by plaintiffs or the board of election commissioners to comply with the requirements of the civil service provisions of the charter.

The civil service provisions of the charter are. contained in article XIII thereof, and section 11 of said article provides that “All officers, courts, boards and heads of departments, vested in this charter with the power to appoint deputies, clerks, stenographers or employees in any of the offices or departments of the city and county mentioned in this section, shall make'such appointments in conformity with the rules and provisions prescribed by this article, and any appointment not so made shall be void.” The section further expressly provides that the provisions of article XIII shall apply to the board of election commissioners.

In the face of these provisions of the charter, it is not claimed by respondent that the appointments of plaintiffs were valid. On the contrary, it seems to be conceded that such appointments were void. Plaintiffs sought to recover and did recover, upon the theory that, though their appointments were void as having been made in violation of the clear and express provisions of the law, yet as they performed the services, and appellant received the benefit thereof, plaintiffs are entitled to recover the reasonable value of such services from the municipality.