Aron v. Leavy

California Supreme Court Dec 1, 1933 No. Docket No. S.F. 14482.Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the San Francisco charter provision requiring city employees to be United States citizens applies to persons retained in employment following the city's acquisition of a private utility, and such employees cannot invoke estoppel to receive payment for services rendered while ineligible.

Issues

Whether the San Francisco charter provision requiring city employees to be U.S. citizens applies to persons retained after the city acquired their former employer.
Whether the doctrine of estoppel prevents the city from refusing payment to ineligible alien employees who were retained after the city's acquisition of a utility.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The obvious purpose of the section was to prohibit the employment of aliens by the city and county. The retention of said persons in their former employment was in effect an appointment within the meaning of the section”

“The aliens formerly employed by the water company could not claim the benefit of the doctrine of estoppel by failing to disclose their ineligibility and continuing in the employment.”

THE COURT.

A hearing was granted in this case after decision by the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two. Upon further consideration, we conclude that the decision is correct, and we adopt the opinion of Mr. Justice Spence as the opinion of this court. The said opinion reads as follows:

“Plaintiff, a taxpayer, sought to enjoin the defendant Auditor from allowing the demands of certain persons against the city and county of San Francisco. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.

“From the agreed statement of facts it appears that on March 3,1930, said city and county of San Francisco acquired all of the operative properties of the Spring Valley Water

[458]

Company; that at said time the persons referred to were in the employ of said Spring Valley Water Company; that upon taking over the properties of said company said persons were taken into the employ of said city and county of San Francisco and continued in said employment during the period in question ; and that said persons were not and are not citizens of the United States.

“The question here presented arises under the provisions of article XVI, section 2, of the charter of San Francisco, as amended in 1913. (Stats. 1913, p. 1602.) We quote only the following pertinent portion: ‘All persons appointed to office, position or employment under the City and County must be citizens of the United States, . . . ’

“Appellant contends that said charter provision had no application to the persons named in the complaint as said persons were not ‘appointed’ to any employment under the said city and county. In our opinion this contention is without merit. The obvious purpose of the section was to prohibit the employment of aliens by the city and county. The retention of said persons in their former employment was in effect an appointment within the meaning of the section and the city and county could not do indirectly that which it could not do directly. Appellant urges that the charter should be considered as a whole and refers to article XIII, section 11, subdivision B thereof, reading: ‘The following persons securing standing on the eligible list in examinations shall be preferred for appointment:

Aron v. Leavy

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief