Higgins v. Cole
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Municipal Corporations—Power to Remove Chief of Fire Department. —Where a chief of the fire department of a city has no right or authority except such as he has acquired under the ordinances of the •city, he may be removed or superseded by the action of its legislative body.
Td.—Construction of Ordinance— Duration of Term of Office—Power to Remove Officers—Constitutional Law.—Where a lawful ordinance of a city provided that the chief of the fire department should be appointed to hold office for one year, or until his successor should he appointed and qualified, it must be construed as declaring only that the term of office shall continue until his successor is elected and qualified, and not necessarily for a full year; and under a statute providing that the city trustees may appoint and remove such subordinate officers as they may deem proper, their right of removal cannot be limited by such ordinance, and the term of office of the chief of the fire department not being fixed by the constitution nor declared by law must be held to continue only during the pleasure of the appointing power, by virtue of section 16 of article XX of the state constitution.
Belcher, C. The city of Fresno is a municipal corporation, organized in 1885, under the provisions of an act of the legislature approved March 13, 1883, entitled “An act to provide for the organization, incorporation, and government of municipal corporations.” It is of the fifth class named in the act, and has a board of trustees vested with power, among other things, “to provide fire-engines and all other necessary or proper apparatus for the prevention and extinguishment of fires; to appoint and remove such policemen and other subordinate officers as they may deem proper, and to fix their [261]duties and compensation; to establish fire limits, with proper regulations”; and “to do and .perform any and all other acts and things necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter,” etc. (Sec. 764, subds. 6, 15, 18, 19.)
The city now owns, and ever since its incorporation has owned, three fire-engines and other apparatus for the prevention and extinguishment of fires, and it also has, and has had, a volunteer fire department.
In 1891 there was a city ordinance, No. 224, providing:
“ Section 1. The fire department of this city shall consist of volunteer companies of firemen, organized into engine, hose, and hook and ladder companies, who shall elect their officers.”
“Sec. 2. The chief of the fire department and his assistants shall be elected annually by members of the department, with the approval of the board of trustees, and shall give such bond as the board of trustees may require.”
On the 18th of January, 1892, an ordinance, No. 248, was passed amending the foregoing ordinance and reading as follows:
“Section 1. The fire department of the city shall consist of volunteer companies of firemen, organized into engine, hose, and hook and ladder companies, who shall elect their own officers, to wit: the foreman, who is the presiding officer, a secretary, and a treasurer.”
“Sec. 2. The chief of the fire department and his associates shall be appointed annually by the board of trustees, to hold office each for one year, or until his or their successors are appointed and qualified. And the chief of the fire department shall give a bond,” etc.
“ Sec. 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately from and after its passage and approval.”
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)