Brenham

People v. Brenham

Good Law
3 Cal. 477
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 15, 1853California6,264 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hastings, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. Murray, Justice, concurred with the Chief Justice in his conclusion, but for different reasons, and delivered his opinion in conformity to his views. Lyons, Justice, dissented.

Hastings, Chief Justice. Three propositions are suggested *486 relating to the construction of the Charter of the City of San Francisco, regulating the election and terms of the officers of the city.

One of these propositions must be adopted, and we shall adopt that which would naturally produce the least injury, and best harmonize with the intention of the legislature, and the general policy of the State Government, relating to the terms and tenure of office.

The first proposition violates section 2, article 4, of the Charter, which provides that both boards (of aldermen) shall assemble on the first Monday after their election, and would operate an injury to the public in this, that they would be deprived of the services of officers, who would usually be elected for causes influencing the minds of the electors at the time, which might not exist months after, and a wrong upon the officers elect, by postponing the commencement of their terms, until the first Monday of…

Concurring Opinion

Murray, J.

Although I concur with the conclusions of the Chief Justice, I have been led to them by a somewhat different train of reasoning, and desire to state my views upon the questions arising in this case.

The only points of any importance for our decision are, 1st, does the City Charter provide for an election for city officers to be held in September, 1851, at the general election for state officers ? And 2d, if such an election was 'contemplated and provided for, was the election of the relator valid and sufficient ? Those portions of the Charter which relate to the time of elections and the term of office, are sect. 1st, art. 2d, which provides, that “ there shall be elected annually, by general ticket, a mayor,” &c. Sect. 16 art. 4: “ The officers elected under this Charter, shall continue in office for one year, or until their successors are elected and qualified.” And sect. 5, art. 2: “The first general election under this Charter for city officers, shall be held on the fourth Monday of April, 1851, and thereafter annually, at the general election for state officers.” Upon the construction of this section turns the whole case. To me the plain and obvious meaning of this section…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.