Peters v. Bell

Citations

• 51 La. Ann. 1621
• 26 So. 442
• 1898 La. LEXIS 595

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>On Motion to Dismiss.</p> <p>'Where the salary of the office of one who claims that he has been Illegally di#charged, if as he claims, he 7tas been illegally discharged, is more than the sum required to give this court jurisdiction, an appeal will lie. The amount of the claim for salary may be shown by affidavit in the Supreme Court.</p> <p>On the Merits.</p> <p>1. The removed officer held under appointment from the officer in charge of a department.</p> <p>Ha was appointed first by the City Council under the Charter of 1882, and reappointed under the Charter of 1896, in September, 1896. The reappointment by the city engineer was made under an ordinance of the City Council authorizing defendant to appoint plaintiff.</p> <p>2. He qualified under the last appointment prior to the classification of office* and the adoption of the civil service rules. He was not examined by the civil service board ,and his case does not come within the rules of the board.</p> <p>3. The ordinance giving to the engineer the power to appoint his deputies was not ultra vires. Under the charter of 1882, the City Council had the power ro regulate the city engineer’s office; under the existing charter, the power was expressly delegated to the city engineer, under conditions which could not be observed, but still leaving the power to appoint in that officer.</p> <p>i. The power of appointment carries with it the power of removal, where the appointment is not made for a special term.</p> <p>'In matter of an injunction to reinstate the officer, the right sought not being obvious, the court a qua was vested with discretion needful to grant the-writ.</p> <p>The issue of title is one primarily to be settled in quo warranto, intrusion into office, or other similar proceedings.</p>