City & County of San Francisco v. Broderick
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Election Commissioners of San Francisco—Power over Election Expenses—Limit Fixed by Supervisors not Binding.—The election commissioners of San Francisco have exclusive power over the conduct, management, and control of elections therein, and demands on the treasury authorized or allowed by them for the purpose of carrying out the registration and election laws have the same force and effect as if authorized or allowed by the board of supervisors, nor are they bound by any limit fixed by the board of supervisors as its estimate of registration and election expenses to be paid out of the general fund; nor does the fact that its estimate is too low deprive the holders of claims for the excess above such estimate, which have been allowed by the election commissioners, of their right to payment so long as there is money in the treasury applicable thereto.
Id.—Ordinance of Supervisors—Duty of Auditor.—It is not competent for the supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, by ordinance or resolution, to restrict the amount to be paid for election expenses, nor to restrict the auditor in the exercise of his office, nor to absolve him from the performance of his duty to audit demands upon the treasury which have been approved and ordered paid by the proper board or officer, and the holder of such a demand has the right to the enforcement of this duty.
Id.—Favoritism by Auditor—Insufficient Funds.—The auditor is not justified in showing any favoritism by auditing the claim of one person in preference to that of another, upon the theory that there may not be sufficient money in the treasury to meet all demands upon it.
Id.—City and County—Choice among Creditors—Injunction against Auditor.—The city and county of San Francisco can in law have no choice as to which of its creditors shall first be paid; and it cannot by ordinance or resolution restrain the auditor from auditing demands against it which have been properly allowed and ordered paid.
Harrison, J. At the time of levying the annual tax for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1895, the board of supervisors of the city and county of Ban Francisco fixed the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars
[304]as its estimate of the registration and election expenses-for the general election to be held in November, 1894,. and set apart and appropriated out of the general fund that amount of money for that purpose. Subsequently, they adopted an ordinance purporting to limit the expenditures for this object to this amount, and directed the auditor not to audit, and the treasurer not to pay, any demand in excess thereof. In holding and conducting said election, however, the board of election commissioners and the registrar of elections incurred liabilities and charges against the city and county in a sum of upwards of forty thousand dollars in excess of the amount thus set apart, and made out and delivered warrants therefor on the general fund to the parties claiming to be entitled to the same. After warrants amounting to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars had been paid, the plaintiff herein commenced the present action against the defendant, who is the auditor of said city and county, to restrain him from auditing and allowing or approving any warrant or warrants made out by said board of election commissioners, or by said registrar of elections, in excess of said sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, upon the ground that after that sum had been set apart for this purpose, and while. there was other money in the treasury to the credit of the general fund, exclusive of said sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, it had, upon the faith of said moneys in excess of said sum, entered into contracts with divers persons for necessary and lawful supplies for its use, and, if the aforesaid warrants in excess of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars were paid, the general fund would be so depleted that there would be no funds with which to pay the claims of said contractors ; that said contractors had protested against the payment of said warrants, and had threatened to sue the plaintiff upon their contracts, and would vex and harass the plaintiff 'with a multiplicity of suits if said warrants were allowed and paid. To this complaint the [305]defendant demurred, and his demurrer having been sustained, judgment was rendered in his favor, from which the plaintiff has appealed.
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)