People ex rel. Brooks v. Melony
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
It is part of the constitutional policy of this State that all elective officers connected with the Executive Department of the Government shall be elected at the same time and place, and in the same manner.
A Controller must be elected biennially, at the same time and place and in the same manner with the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, and an appointment of a Controller by the Governor before this biennial general election, whatever its effect otherwise, cannot defeat this constitutional policy, nor deprive the people of their right to fill the office of Controller at such election. Nor can election by the people, had before the election fixed for filling the office of Governor, etc., defeat this policy.
The Controller elect may take his office, whether the Governor qualifies or not.
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
This is a proceeding by quo warranto to test the title to an office. The agreed facts are as follows:
First—That on the seventh day of September, A. D., 1859, there was a general election held in and for the State of California, at which time the relator, Samuel H. Brooks, received a majority of all the votes cast at said election for the office of the Controller of said State.
Second—That said election was duly and legally held on the day last aforesaid, pursuant to law and to the proclamation of the Governor of said State, duly made; and that at said election Milton S. Latham was elected Governor, and John G. Downey, Lieutenant Governor, of said State.
Third—That on the third day of January, 1860, the said relator received a commission from the Governor of the State of California, as Controller for the term of said office prescribed by law, and that a copy of said commission is annexed to and made a part of the complaint.
Fourth—That on the fifth day of January, 1860, the said relator filed his official bond as Controller, in the office of the Secretary of State, and that said bond was duly approved on the same day by the Governor of the State.
Fifth—That on the day last aforesaid, the said relator took the oath of office as Controller, before the Hon. J. G. Baldwin, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, which said oath was properly indorsed on the said commission, and on the seventh day of January, 1860, a copy .thereof was duly and legally filed in the office of the Secretary of State.
Sixth—That on the seventh day of January, 1860, the said relator notified the said defendant that he had been elected and qualified as Controller of said State, and was prepared to enter on the discharge of the duties of said office, and on the same day made demand on the said defendant to surrender up said office to him.
[61]Seventh—That at the time of said notice and demand, the said defendant was, and still is, in possession of said office, and receiving the salary and emoluments thereof, and that he refused to surrender up said office to the relator at that time.
Eighth—That at the general election held in and for the State of California, in the year 1855, George W. Whitman was duly elected Controller, for the term of said office prescribed by law, and that he duly qualified, and entered on the discharge of the duties of said office, and at the same election J. Neely Johnson was elected Governor, and Robert Anderson, Lieutenant Governor, of said State.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)