Case Name: THE PEOPLE ex rel. HENRY CARLTON, Jr., v. JOHN MIDDLETON, WM. HOOPER, SAMUEL KNIGHT, and WILLIAM M. LENT, Commissioners of the Funded Debt of the City of San Francisco
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1865-10
Citations: 28 Cal. 603
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE ex rel. HENRY CARLTON, Jr., v. JOHN MIDDLETON, WM. HOOPER, SAMUEL KNIGHT, and WILLIAM M. LENT, Commissioners of the Funded Debt of the City of San Francisco.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 603–605

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE ex rel. HENRY CARLTON, Jr., v. JOHN MIDDLETON, WM. HOOPER, SAMUEL KNIGHT, and WILLIAM M. LENT, Commissioners of the Funded Debt of the City of San Francisco.
Commissioners of Funded Debt of San Francisco.—The Commissioners of the Funded Debt of Sun Francisco are not officers "within the meaning of Article XI, Section seven, of the Constitution, and the term during which the Commissioners are authorized to act is not limited to four years.
This was an application for a writ of mandate, commenced in the Supreme Court.
The relator averred in his petition that Charles M. Hitchcock was appointed one of the Commissioners of the Funded Debt of San Francisco, and duly qualified, more than four years prior to October 1st, 1864, and that his term of office as such expired at the end of four years after he qualified, and that after the expiration of his term the relator was appointed by the Governor of the State a member of the Board to fill the vacancy caused by the expiration of his term, and that the relator had requested the defendants to unite with him in the execution of a joint and several bond, required by the Act constituting the Board, to the end that he might' enter upon the duties of the office, but they had refused to comply with his request.
The object of the suit was to compel the other Commissioners to unite with him in the bond.
G. F. & W. H. Sharp, for Relator.
H. Haight, for Respondents.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Sawyer, J.
The Commissioners appointed under "An Act to fund the floating debt of the City of San Francisco, and to provide for the payment of the same," passed May 1st, 1851, and the various Acts amendatory and supplementary thereto, are not, in our opinion, officers within the meaning of Article XI, Section seven, of the Constitution. They exercise none of the governmental or police powers of the municipal corporation. They simply stand in the position of trustees between the city and certain designated creditors in relation to a designated class of the indebtedness of the city, to receive certain moneys appropriated by law for the payment of the interest, and to constitute a sinking fund for the ultimate extinction of the debt, and manage and dispose of the same in the mode pre scribed. They are trustees of the creditors, as well as of the city, in respect to the matters committed to their charge, each being equally interested in the trust, and in having the funds managed by experienced and competent men, appointed in the manner designated before the creditors accepted the proposition of the city to surrender their evidence of indebtedness, and accept in its stead the stock issued under the provisions of the Act, and upon the terms and conditions therein provided. As soon as the debt is all paid, and the trusts assumed are discharged, the powers and duties of the Commissioners, or trustees, cease without any further legislative action. We think the term during which the Commissioners are authorized to act not limited by the constitutional provision cited.
The order to show cause is discharged, and mandamus denied.