Croly v. Board of Trustees of the City of Sacramento

Citations

• 119 Cal. 229
• 51 P. 323
• 1897 Cal. LEXIS 884

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Charter of Sacramento—Power of Board of Trustees—Trial of Charges against Superintendent of Streets—Jurisdiction—Sufficiency of Charges—Prohibition.—Under the municipal charter of the' city of Sacramento, the board of trustees has jurisdiction to try the superintendent of streets upon charges of incompetency, neglect of official duty, and being interested in contracts payable from the city treasury, in violation of the charter, and to remove him from office, if found guilty thereof; and the question of the sufficiency of the charges in form must be made to the board having the authority to determine them, and cannot be considered upon application for a writ of prohibition, nor will such writ lie to prevent a trial of the charges, where none of them is based upon a violation of-the general laws of the state, and the subject matter of the charges’ is within the class of matters that the board is authorized to try.</p> <p>Id.—Constitutional Law—Exercise of Judicial Power—Municipal Authority.—The charter of the city of Sacramento is not unconstitutional as conferring the exercise of a judicial power upon the board of trustees to try a municipal officer thereunder; but the appointment and removal of a city superintendent of streets is a matter purely municipal, which, under the constitutional power to frame a city charter, may be conferred upon the municipal body, and is rather the exercise of a power necessary for its police and good administration than the exercise of judicial powers by a legislative body.</p> <p>Id.—Common Law Power of Amotion of Officers.—It seems that there is a common-law power of amotion of officers as an incident to all corporations, though not conferred by statute; but the question is undecided, and is referred to as showing that a charter provision authorizing such amotion is not to be considered as unprecedented, or held unconstitutional or inoperative unless upon clearly sufficient grounds.</p> <p>Id.—Double Penalty—Removal and D