Case Name: S. D. Peters vs. A. C. Bell, City Engineer
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1898-11-21
Citations: 51 La. Ann. 1621
Docket Number: No. 12,924
Parties: S. D. Peters vs. A. C. Bell, City Engineer.
Judges: Monroe, J., takes no part, as he was not a member of this court when the case was submitted.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 1621–1630

Head Matter:
No. 12,924.
S. D. Peters vs. A. C. Bell, City Engineer.
Syllabus.
On Motion to Dismiss.
'Where the salary of the office of one who claims that he has been Illegally di#charged, if as he claims, he 7tas been illegally discharged, is more than the sum required to give this court jurisdiction, an appeal will lie. The amount of the claim for salary may be shown by affidavit in the Supreme Court.
On the Merits.
1. The removed officer held under appointment from the officer in charge of a department.
Ha was appointed first by the City Council under the Charter of 1882, and reappointed under the Charter of 1896, in September, 1896. The reappointment by the city engineer was made under an ordinance of the City Council authorizing defendant to appoint plaintiff.
2. He qualified under the last appointment prior to the classification of office* and the adoption of the civil service rules. He was not examined by the civil service board ,and his case does not come within the rules of the board.
3. The ordinance giving to the engineer the power to appoint his deputies was not ultra vires. Under the charter of 1882, the City Council had the power ro regulate the city engineer’s office; under the existing charter, the power was expressly delegated to the city engineer, under conditions which could not be observed, but still leaving the power to appoint in that officer.
i. The power of appointment carries with it the power of removal, where the appointment is not made for a special term.
'In matter of an injunction to reinstate the officer, the right sought not being obvious, the court a qua was vested with discretion needful to grant the-writ.
The issue of title is one primarily to be settled in quo warranto, intrusion into office, or other similar proceedings.
ON APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Bilis, J.
James Wilhinson and A. J. Peters for the Plaintiff and Appellant.
Samuel L. Gilmore, City Attorney, and W. B. Sommerville, Assistant City Attorney, for the Defendant and Appellee.
Submitted on motion to dismiss November 1, 1898.
Opinion on motion to dismiss handed down November 21, 1898.
Argued and submitted March 23, 1899.
Opinion handed down on the merits April 3, 1899.
Rehearing refused June 26, 1899.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
Plaintiff alleges that -he was appointed assistant engineer of the city of New Orleans on the 5th of May, 1896, under the authority of the City Council, and was, when unlawfully discharged, performing -the duties of his office.
That having been regularly appointed, under the terms of the city charter, he holds his office during good behavior, and can only be discharged for cause, by the City Council and not by the city engineer,, who has undertaken to discharge him.
He avers in his petition, that the sum in controversy exceeds two-thousand dollars, and he prays for an injunction, prohibiting him from obstructing him in carrying out the duties of hi-s office, except so far as it may be needful to give necessary orders to perform the-work of his office.
The district judge refused to grant an injunction. Thereupon plaintiff filed a supplemental and amended petition for a judgment as-prayed for in his original petition recognizing him as entitled to the-office he claims, with the emoluments, at the rate of one hundred dollars per month from June 15, 1891, to the time when he shall have-been reinstated.
There is an affidavit filed in this court setting forth his interest aabeing in amount within the jurisdiction of this court.
The judge of the court a, qua mantained the exception, and dismissed plaintiff's suit.
Plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
We have only to deal at this time with the jurisdiction of this court which comes up on defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal.
It may be that the amount involved is much less than two thousand dollars, and that on the merits it will be decided that plaintiff has no-right of action. At this time, we would not feel justified in dismissing the appeal upon the assumption that he is not entitled to any amount (as defendant urges we should) or to be reinstated, and that his averments and affidavits were made in error. Some weight has-always been given to affidavits setting forth that the judgment was-rendered for an appealable amount, whenever the evidence did not,, on the face of the papers, show that it was not correct and true.
Only as relates to jurisdiction, there is sufficient showing made to> enable plaintiff to sustain his appeal and to obtain a hearing as to whether he is entitled to a reinstatement to the office he claims and to the salary of the office to the day of reinstatement. Goodrich vs. Newell, 43rd Ann., 373; and Sims vs. Walshe, 49th Ann., 781.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.