Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Cal. 39

Vaughn v. English

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1857

California Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

The respondent was, in January, 1856, appointed clerk in the office of Secretary of State, which position he still holds. At the time of his appointment, his salary was fixed by law at two hundred and seventy dollars per month, which sum he continued to receive up to the thirty-first of March, 1857.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Officers are public or private, and it is said every man is a public officer who hath any duty concerning the public, and he is not the less a public officer where his authority is confined to narrow limits, because it is the duty of his office and the nature of that duty which makes him a public officer, and not the extent of his authority. (Jacobs’s Law Dict. vol. 4, p. 438.) ” (Vaughn v. English, 8 Cal. 41 .) Burrill’s Law Dictionary, a standard of authority at the time at which this provision was incorporated into the organic law of the several states, holds that an office is:”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State ex rel. Kendall v. Cole

Cited in Abbott (1879)’s definition of “Officer”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 1996

16 state decisions — followed in 11 states

60185718601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Terry, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Murray, C. J., concurring.

¶1The sixth section of the act of April, 1856, provides: “ This 'act shall not be held to reduce the salary or pay of any of the incumbents now in office, who shall for their present term receive compensation at the rates now prescribed by law, but shall apply to every such officer hereafter elected or appointed.”

¶2The only question presented by the record is, whether a clerk in one of the departments is an officer within the meaning of this section.

¶3The term officer, in its common acceptation, is sufficiently comprehensive to include all persons in any public station or employment conferred by government.

¶4*42“ Officers are public or private, and it is said every man is a public officer, who hath any duty concerning the public, and he is not the less a public officer, where his authority is confined to narrow limits, because it is the duty of his office and the nature of that duty which makes him a public officer, and not the extent of his authority.” Jacobs' Law Dic., vol. 4, p. 433.

¶5The respondent was appointed by government; the duties which he is to perform concern the public, and he is paid out of the public treasury; he is therefore clearly a public officer.

¶6The terms of the act of April, 1856, we think show conclusively that the Legislature intended the term “ office” to include all persons employed by the government.

¶7The act is entitled “ An act to reduce and fix the salaries of officers and members of the Legislature,” and the clerks of the different departments are included in the list of officers whose salaries are fixed by the act.

¶8The objection that such clerks have no definite term of office is not tenable; they are appointed for the term of the officer making the appointment, subject to the power of removal.

¶9Judgment of the Court below is affirmed, with costs.

/8/cal/39 · .json · Public domain