The herald., 1896-10-25
THE SUPREME COURT
Captain Mullins Claim
Against the State Void
LEGISLATURE EXCEEDED ITS POWER
The Bradbury Case Of This City
Decided
TO RECOVER LOANED MONEY
A Long Contested Suit at Last Brought
to au End
AFruit Company Wins From th. Southern
Pacific on Appeal
The Rights Of the Public to Ocean Park
A Long Contested Suit at Last Brought
to an End
AFruit Company Wins From The Southern
Pacific on Appeal
The Rights Of. the Public to Ocean Park
Avenue at Long Beach Are Sus-
tanned by the Court on.
Appeal


Appeal
A batch Of opinions was handed down
by the supreme court yesterday, two OF
which are of local interest and third,
the case of Capt. John Mullin, is Of gen.
eral interest throughout the state For
years Mullin has sought to recover a
large amount of money in the shape of
commissions, alleged by him to be due
for collecting from the United States
government various claims. The de-
cision of the supreme court, now hand
ed down, would seem to put a quietus on
Capt. Mullins claim on the ground of
constitutional infringement.
THE STATES AGENT LOSES
In the case of John Mullin, plaintiff
and appellant, VS.. the State of Califor-
MIA, defendant and respondent, the case
was an appeal from the judgment en-
tered upon failure to amend after de-
murrer sustained to the complaint.
The complaint Is in two counts The
first alleges the following facts: That
between the 18th day of December, 1878,
and the 1st day of May, 1891, the plaintiff
rendered services to the defendant, at
its special instance and request, as the
agent Of said state, in acting in its be-
half in the matter Of recovering certain
moneys paid by the state to the United
States under the provisions Of a certain
act of congress, approved Aug. s, 1861,
entitled IAN act to provide increased
revenue from imports to pay interest
upon the public debt and for other pur-
poses;" that the defendant promised to
pay plaintiff 20 per cent of all moneys
collected by him from the United States
n a RI
said state the sum of $216,-
35787; that no part of the 20 per cent has
been paid plaintiff, and that the plain
tiff has presented his claim for the sum
due to the board Of examiners, as pro-
vided by law, and said board has re-
fused to allow the claim, either in whole
or part. The second count is upon a
similar cause Of action for smaller
amount. l.4ss
The demurrer was sustained upon the
ground that the alleged employment of
plaintiff was unauthorized and void, and
created no valid obligation against the
state. 1t is suggested by the appellant,
lin limine." that this objection does not
arise on demurrer; that the allegation
that plaintiff was employed by the state
as its agent is one Of fact, and is ad-
mitted by the demurrer; that If such
employment was not legal because
made In manner not binding upon the
state, that question can only be raised
out does not appear upon the face Of the
complaint.
But the court takes cognizance of the
fact that there could be no valid en-
ployment Of plaintiff by the state for the
purpose alleged. without authorization
by the legislature. and as we are furth-
er charged with a knowledge Of what
ever is established by law, and of all
public as well as private acts of the leg
isiative, executive and judicial depart
ments Of the state &c. G. p, 1875, sub
div. and 81, the complaint must be re-
garded as laying before us whatever of
authority may exist in the law for plain
tins employment to the same extent as
II such authority was expressly alleged
1Whiting vs.. Townsend, 81 Cal, SIS;
Falkler vs. Wright, SO Cal, 21O: Cole VS.
Segraves, S8 Cal, 1867.
Proceeding. then, to inquire as to the
authority under which PLAINTIFF as
sumed to act in the premises, we find
that the only thing relied upon as tend
ing to establish any special Legislative
authorization for the alleged employ
ment is based upon these facts:
In MS biennial message to the leRis.
Iature at its twenty-f1fth session the
governor made statement that he had
received Information with reference to
proceedings before congress looking to
the reimbursement of this state for GER
tain expenditures made by It in sun-
pressing Indian hostilities during the
Modoc war. and in repelling prior In
dian invasions and hostilities, and also
OF certain sums assessed against this
state under the act of congress approved
August B. 1861, to pay the interest on the
public debt and for other PURPOSES. and
wherein 1t is stated that he had appoint-
ed Capt. John Mullin to represent this
state before the authorities at Washing
ton, and recommends to the legislature
that these appointments be ratified and
confirmed by you, and that you provide
Tor his compensation to be paid out Of
the sums he may recover for the state.
contingent however, upon his success,
It having been expressly understood
tnat such compensation should be left
TO your judgment and discretion"
Acting upon the recommendation of
the governor, the legislature on March
!. 1883, adopted resolution confirming
the appointment Of Capt. John Mullin,
ana that he be paid 20 per cent of the
sums or claims he might collect, proyid-
ed the state should not become liable for
any expenses. fees and salaries of any
nature other than such contingent COM
mission.
1T is contended by the attorney-gen-
erai. says the court, "and we think cor
rectly. that these proceedings did mt
constitute any competent basis for the
contract alleged, within the provisions
of the constitution of this states Sec
tion 80 Of article Nv of our constitution
provides:
"The legislature shall have no power
to pay or to authorize the nav
ment Of any claim hereafter created
against the state under anv
agreement or contract made without ex-
press authority of law; and all such IN
authorized agreements or contracts
shall be null and void"
And section 15 of the same article pro-
vides: "No law shall be passed except by
BILL"
The action of the governor and legis-
lature did not constitute the enactment
Of a law" but it is urged that the words
express authority of law have a
broader Specification than that of valid
statute law; that 1t was competent for
the legislature to ratify the act Of the
governor by resolution, and that such
action constitutes express authority of
law" The supreme court does not coin
eide with that view, holding that the
language Of the constitution itself IL q