People ex rel. Palmer v. Woodbury

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1859Published

Before: Baldwin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the position of Pilot of the Port of San Francisco is a public office, and that the Board of Pilot Commissioners lacks the authority to appoint individuals who do not meet the statutory eligibility requirements established by the Legislature. Consequently, quo warranto is the appropriate remedy to challenge an appointment made in violation of these mandatory qualifications.

Issues

Whether the position of Pilot of the Port of San Francisco constitutes a public office.
Whether the Board of Pilot Commissioners has the authority to appoint individuals who do not meet statutory eligibility requirements.
Whether quo warranto is the proper remedy to challenge the appointment of a Pilot who lacks the required qualifications.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is difficult to conceive of a definition of a public office which would not embrace this appointment.”

“The Board acting as a Special Commission, organized by Act of the Legislature, has just such powers as the Act confers upon it. It cannot transcend those powers.”

“It is not to be supposed that the Legislature meant to give to this Board practically a right to dispense with, or at pleasure set aside, the public law”

Synopsis

Is quo warranto to determine the right to an office, an allegation, that defendant is in possession of the office without lawful authority, is a sufficient allegation of intrusion and usurpation.

If the complaint be defective in this particular, the defect must be reached by special demurrer.

The place of Pilot in the port of San Francisco, is an office.

The Board of Pilot Commissioners, under the Act of 1854, as amended by the Act of 1858, have only the powers conferred by the Act, and must appoint the Pilots from the classes of persons named therein. They cannot appoint a man as Pilot, who has not served two years on a pilot boat in the harbor, or commanded a vessel in and out of port for three years.

Quo warranto lies to test the right of an appointee of this Board.

No appointing power in this State can determine conclusively upon the capacity of the appointee to hold office. That question may be examined in the Courts.

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J. concurring.

This was a proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto, to determine the right of the Respondent to the appointment or place of Pilot of the Port of San Francisco. Woodbury was appointed by the Board of Pilot Commissioners. The Act of May 11th, 1854, (Session Acts, 49,) provides that the Governor shall appoint two resident merchants and two experienced shipmasters, who, with the President of the Chamber of Commerce, shall ■ constitute the Board of Commissioners. The Act gives them power to appoint in the manner prescribed therein, such number of Pilots as they may deem necessary, not exceeding thirty. This number, by the amendatory Act of 1858, was reduced to twenty. By the eighth section of the original Act, persons applying to act as Pilots shall be American citizens, not under twenty-one; and they shall be examined rigidly by the Commissioners, in the presence of one or more licensed Pilots, touching their qualifications and knowledge of the management óf square-rigged vessels, and of the tides, soundings, bearings, and distances, of the different shoals, rocks, bars, and points of land, and night lights, of the harbor and bay; and, if deemed qualified, shall rebeive a license as Pilot, which shall expire at the end of twelve months.

By the amendatory Act of 1858, an additional qualification is added: The candidate must be not only an American citizen, not under twenty-one years of age, but have served two years on board a pilot boat, or have commanded a square-rigged ves[45]sel in the coasting trade, in and out of the harbor of San Francisco, for three years, and shall be rigidly examined before the Commissioners, by two or more licensed Pilots, touching his qualifications for the management of square-rigged vessels.

The grounds of this proceeding are, that Woodbury was ineligible to this place, because, first, he had not served two years aboard a pilot boat, in the harbor of San Francisco, before the grant of license; and, second, that he had never commanded a square-rigged vessel in the coasting trade, in and out of the harbor of San Francisco, for three years before such grant.

On the trial the District Court dismissed the complaint, on the motion of the defendant, upon the ground that the facts, if proved, did not entitle the plaintiff to a recovery.

1. It was contended by defendant that the complaint does not aver that the defendant had intruded into, or usurped, the office in question. If the complaint is not sufficiently formal in this respect, the defect should have been presented by special demurrer. The allegations of the complaint sufficiently show that the defendant is in possession of the place, and this without lawful authority, and this we take to be a sufficient allegation of intrusion and usurpation.

People ex rel. Palmer v. Woodbury

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief