Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-02-17
O'MEARA WINS.
The Sick Room Meeting Held to be
Valid-The Decision In Full.

neId on the J0th day OF July, 1887. But the de-
fendant claims that the meeting of the Board
was not duly called, and that therefore the act
OF electing O'Meara was void, and that as he
had been elected to the Office two years prior
thereto, he still continued to hold the Office.
This would be so if the election of O'Meara was
void, snd whether it was void depends upon
whether the meeting of the Board, at which he
was elected, was legally called and held. The
place where the Board held its meetings usually
was the . Corporation House" with one or two
exceptions, when the meetings were held at the
parlors of John Conran, one of the Commission
ers. One OF those meetings was held there in
1886, and the other at the time of the election
OF " Meara. On both occasions they were
held there on account of his ill-health. as
to whether any other meetings were held
az Conran's house, the evidence is not clear.
At the time of the election of OMeaIa the
Board consisted Of John T. Griffitts, John Con-
ran and John F. Slater and Gritiitts was then
the President. He usually called the meetings
OF the Board This was done by telling the
Chief Engineer to notify the other members
that meeting would be held at q stated time
and place. The directions to the engineer and
the notices to the other members were never in
writing, but were always given verbally. The
President, Grifitts called q meeting for the
evening of July %, 1887, to elect Chief En-
glueer and other officers of the Fire Depart
ment. He and Commissioner Slater were
present, but Commissioner John Conran, on ac-
count of il-health, was absent. Before that
meeting was held it was believed by Commits
sioners Conran and Slater that Grifitts and
Slater would not be able to agree upon Chief
Engineer and that no election would be had
without the presence of Conran and as he was
not able to attend at the usual place of meeting,
they agreed TO call meeting of the Board to
be held at Conrans rooms, at l O'Clock P. NJ. of
July 90 1857, for the purpose of eecting the Off
GERS OF the Fire Department, and they then
signed request or direction to the Secretary to
call such meeting which was dated as of the
next day, as follows:
" SACRAMENTO, July 20. 1887.
Mr.. George w. Jackson, Secretary Of Sacramento
p9jd Fire DeDOrfy1eUf We barabv W nm m
call speciaI meeting of the Board of Fire Com
missioners for the purpose of electing a Chief
Engineer Assistant Engineer and Superinteud-
ent OF Fire Alarm, said meeting to be held at
the rooms of Mr.. John Conran, 10l5 street.
above Tenth, this day, P. NJ, afternoon.
JOHN CoNRAN,
JOHN F. SLATER"
As anticipated, Commissioners Griffitts and
Slater failed to agree upon person for Chief
Engineer, and adjourned without any election;
and then Commissioner slater, as had been
agreed upon between him and Commissioner
Conran delivered the paper signed by them to
the Secretary, George W. jackson. as authority
for him to call the special meeting. The
Secretary then showed the paper to Com
missioner Griffitts and notified him verbally
that the meeting would be held for
the purpose and at the time and place
therein mentioned; and Griffitts said to him,
You are not going to that meeting. are you?'
to which the Secretary replied, 81 think l will
have TO, being governed by the majority of the
Board: and then GrIfiitts said, 81 would like
copy of it," and the Secretary replied, 1t is
dated as of the 30th, and had better not serve
it till tomorrow" to which Griffitts replied that
the date would have no legal significance and
that il did not make any difference, and then
the Secretary made copy and Endorsed there
on Immediately below the names of Conran and
Slater this notice: II hereby give notice that
the meeting will be held at the place and hour
above stated. George W. Jackson, Secretary S.
p. F. D." and then delivered the copy with the
notice to Commissioner Griflitts. The meeting
was held at the time and place indicated in the
notice. There were present at the meeting
Commissioners Conran and Slater and the Sec
rotary jackson, but Commissioner Griffitts failed
to appear, though he was in the city and knew
of the meeting. At this meeting Michael
0'Meara was in due form elected Chief En-
gineer. But the defendant attacks the validity
of the election on two grounds:
First-He claims that majority of the Board
could not call meeting without the consent of
the President and that the President alone had
authority to convene the Board. And.
Seeondly-That a meeting could not be called
or held at any other place than the "Corpor-
alton House. the usual place of meeting.
As to the first proposition. The special Act of
the Legislature by which the Board of Fire
Commissioners was created and given its pow
ers is entirely silent as to how or by whom the
Board is to be convened. Statutes 1872 p. S66)
The Commissioners are authorized by the Act to
meet and organize by electiug one of their
number President; but this does not imply any
other power or authority in the President than
to preside at the meetings of the Board after it
has been assembled. This is his common law
authority. After diligent research ! have not
been able to find any case where the power to
convene the Board vested in the President
ercept tgicr6 He authority conferred on statute
As this special Act confers the authority upon
the members of the Board of Fire Commission
erS to meet but does not designate any one of
them whose duty it shall be to convene the
Board, the irresistible inference is that the Leg
iSlature intended to vest that authority in ma
jprity of them, and not a minority, even though
he be President. The language of the Act
purports to confer joint authority upon
the members of the Board and in
such case Section 10 of the Code of Civil Pro
authority to three or more public officers or
other persons. are construed rs giving such
authority to majority of them, unless it is
otherwise expressed in the Act giving the
authority" AS no one disputes the authority
of the three Fire Commissioners to call them
selves together to do business, when we apply
the rule Of construction established by this pro-
vision of the Code to the language OF the Act by
which the Board was created, it results that
majority of the Commissioners may con
vene the Board. The calling meeting
of the Board is a ministerial act, to do
which the majority of the Commissioners may
delegate the authority to the Secretary, as any
other ministerial authority may be delegated.
This principle is established in Downing VS..
Ruger, n Wend., Us, where the Court conSid-
cred the effect of an act done by one where the
statute conferred the authority upon two Over
seers of the poor The Court said in that case
But admitting that it were necessary that they
should act Jointly throughout, and that, should
one act without the assent of the other all
would be void, the warrant here on its face APP
pears to be regular 1t recites the application
as being made by both, and it being the duty of
the acting Overseer not to proceed without OBJ
tanning the others consent think we are
bound strongly to presume that such consent
was obtained. X cannot be necessary that both
should be corporally present. The duty is
strictly ministerial, and one may act alone as
the agent deputy of both with the others
consent. Ministerial officers may in general
depute their powers to one another, or to third
person. (1omlins Law Dict Deputy Can
there be doubt that Oyerseers of the poor. in
prosecuting under the excise law, or otherwise
appearing as parties, may make an attorney" So
of various other municipal officers. This right
has never been questioned, nor that they may
delegate all their authority to one of their body
to act as attorney. The delegation need not be
in writing il is good, though merely oral. It is
upon this principle that the meetings of the
President through the Chief Engineer. are to be
deemed valid. 1t will be presumed that the
other members of the Board delegated such au-
thority to him, but at any time they saw fit
they could resume the delegated authority and
exercise it themselves, through the Secretary,
as was done in this case, and meeting SO
called is q valid convention of the Board.
Secondly-As TO the point that meeting could
not be called or held at any other place than
the Corporation House"-the usual place OF
meeting-it is not well taken. There is moth
ing in the Act creating the Fire Commissioners
which requires them to hold their meetings at
any particular place. 1t empowers them to
fit up an Office for their use" but it neither ex-
pressly, nor implicitly, forbids them to hold
their meetings at any other place which may be
convenient. and the law is that if majority of
the Commissioners call meeting to be held at
some other place, all the members must have
reasonable notice of the time and place where
the meeting is to be held, and the notice should
state with reasonable certainty the business to
be transacted. When such notice is given, the
proceedings had at the meeting, held at the
specified time and place, though the place be
not the place where the meetings are usually
held, are valid. DILLON on Municipal Corpora
tions, Section 264.) The law upon this point is
well stated in Glover on Corporations, l52. He
said: "All acts done at another than the usual
place bear the stamp of contrivance, secrecy
and fraud, and the Court will suspect an i'm
proper motive. meeting held at an inn in
stead of the Guildhall, particularly when par
taking of an entertainment, can scarcely
be regarded as corporate assembly,
although all the members be present.
Their conduct at such place and
under such circumstances, has both the air of
gravity and elaboration which should attend
the discharge of offices of confidence and all
thority. When the meeting is held at an IN
usual place, iutmation of that circumstance
must be contained in the notice to prevent
fraud or surprise" The object OF notice in such
case is TO give information TO the party entitled
to be present and take part in the transacting
of business of the time and place of the meeting
so he csn attend, ard when this is accomplished
he cannot complain il the meeting is held in
his absence. The conclusion is IN this case
upon both points made by defendant that they