Opinion

Hinton v. Bahrs

  • 18 Cal. App. 53
  • 122 P. 80
  • 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 366
Court
California Court of Appeal
Filed
Jan 22, 1912
Status
Published
Author
Beatty
On the bench
Beatty, Kerrigan
Cited by
1 cases

The opinion

BEATTY, C. J.

I dissent from the order denying a rehearing of this cause. The question presented for decision is not which system of classification of eligibles for employment in the clerical service of San Francisco is the better, but is whether the resolution of June 9, 1908, establishing “class B” was a valid exercise of the discretion of the commissioners. If it was, the petitioner, upon being enrolled in that class after successfully passing the prescribed examination, acquired a vested' right, of which he could not be deprived short of two years, to be recommended in his turn for employment in any clerical position under the municipal government the annual salary of which was not in excess of $1,440. I can see no reason for denying the power of the commissioners to establish the class, and while it was undoubtedly the right of their successors, or of themselves to rearrange the classification, they could not in that way deprive the petitioner and other eligibles of their right during the two year term. As to them the change could not take effect until that time had elapsed. (Charter, art. XIII, sec. 10.) It is, however, the misfortune of petitioner that this view, even if it had prevailed, would have afforded no relief, since his two year term had expired before a decision here could have been reached and the new and equally valid regulation has now displaced the resolution of 1908.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.