Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-02-22
visions Of the act with reference to

visions or the act with reference 10
the removal of such an employe by
arbitrarily fixing the termination of
his employment and thereafter pro-
ceeding to appoint person to that po-
sition on the theory that there was
vacancy to be filled for one year,
commencing on the first day of March
following. The original appointment
having been for an indefinite time,
the action of the board in fixing a
definite term was in effect a removal
of plaintiff without compliance with
the statutory provisions above refer
red to.
Haviland v. Board of FTeeholders,
"a, N ]. L.. 176. And see as somewhat
analogous.
People v. Ripley, Ill, Ill, "A, 80.
The fact that plaintiff applied for
reappointment for the term following
the term for which he had been for
mally appointed did not, we think,
constitute waiver of his right to re-
sist removal otherwise than in &C.
cordance with the provisions of the
statute.
Plaintiff had never had an election
as to whether he should accept an
appointment for definite period or
be removed, for, as already indicated,
he was not subject to removal other
wise than as the statute provides.
The position Of janitor of the court
house is not recognized as statute
and the defendant board no doubt had
the right to provide for the filling Of
such position for definite term or
to let the work by contract, and as to
anyone accepting the position under
such an arrangement all rights would
be terminated on the termination of
the employment or contract, so that
the board might proceed to appoint or
employ another without regard to the
provisions of the statute with refer
ence to removal But plaintiff was
holding the position by indefinite ap
pointment or employment prior to the
action of the board relating to an EN-
ployment for a specific term and he
, could be removed from the position
: only by compliance with the statutory
provisions. Therefore as to him the at
tempt of the board to fill the position
for specified term or by contract
was unauthorized That the position
, held by the plaintiff was one of ap
r pointment or employment within the
: terms of the statute seems not to BIZ
seriously questioned AS holding tina
I the janitor of court house comes
within such statutory provision
j. see
: Peterson " Board of Freeholders
!. GO, N. ]. L., 81.
|, Daley v. Board of Freeholders, 5s
!, N. J. L., 319.
That such provisions as are fount
g in Section 2 of our statute with refer
Z ence to removal only on charges ant
q an investigation are constitutional
q has been decided in the followin,
+ cases:
n In re stuzbach v. Coler, 1853 N. Y
a 41s;
a People v. Ripley, III, III, "A;
r Rogers v. City of Buffalo, 1913 n
4 Y, 173.
y 1t Is urged, however, for the appe
lees that the cases above cited relat
= to civil service laws and that as GU
soldiers preference law is not po
ton of the civil service system bu
relates only to the appointment an
removal of veterans of the civil wa
whose cases are not applicable. W
see no reason for making a distin
7 ton. So far as our statute relates t
removals it is to that extent civ
service law and it was certainly witt
in the discretion Of the legislature
,s make provision for the continuance
4 employment Of veteran until
should be removed on charges and a
u investigation, although no such pr
Of vision is made as to other officers {
e. employees.
~ cho1
Ill town. 151 Iowa, 1913.
The lower court erred, therefore,
in overruling plaintiffs demurrer to d
in PENDANTS answer and the judgmel
against the plaintiff is reversed ar
the case Is remanded to the low,
court for further proceedings in a
cordance with the views expressed
this opinion.
20 REVERSED.
~, Erirhff,,l