Higginbotham v. City of Baton Rouge, La
| Decision Date | 17 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 462,462 |
| Citation | 59 S.Ct. 705,83 L.Ed. 968,306 U.S. 535 |
| Parties | HIGGINBOTHAM v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, LA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 307 U.S. —-, 59 S.Ct. 831, 83 L.Ed. —-.
Messrs. Paul G. Borron, of Baton Rouge, La., and Edward Rightor, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
The City of Baton Rouge, in March, 1935, pursuant to Act No. 1 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1935 of the legislature of Louisiana, adopted an ordinance declar- ing that the City was without authority to retain appellant, Powers Higginbotham, as Superintendent of Public Parks and Streets, and that his employment in that capacity was terminated. Contending that he had been employed for a term continuing until November, 1936, and that the legislation abovementioned constituted an impairment of the obligation of his contract in violation of Section 10 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., appellant brought this suit to recover the balance of his salary for the stated term. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the judgment dismissing his complaint. 190 La. 821, 183 So. 168.
The pertinent legislation with respect to the municipal position in question is comprehensively reviewed in the opinion of the state court. It appears that the City of Baton Rouge has a commission form of government adopted in 1914 under the provisions of Act No. 207 of 1912. The authority of the Commission Council is divided among three departments, viz. (1) the Department of Public Health and Safety, (2) the Department of Finance, and (3) the Department of Public Parks and Streets. It was provided that a Commissioner should be elected for each department, the Mayor being ex officio Commissioner of Public Health and Safety. In 1921 the terms of office of the members of the Commission Council were fixed at four years, the election to be had in April. Appellant was elected Commissioner of the Department of Public Parks and Streets in April, 1931, for a term which was to expire in May, 1935. But in 1934 the date for the election of officers was postponed to November, 1936, and appellant's term of office was extended accordingly. Later, by Act No. 13 of the Third Extraordinary Session of 1934, the legislature abolished the office of Commissioner of Public Parks and Streets and transferred its functions to the Mayor. There was also created a Department of State Coordination and Public Welfare and provision was made for the election of a Commissioner of that Department. This was followed by a proviso that the person then filling the office of Commissioner of the Department of Public Parks and Streets should be entitled to enter the employ of the City, at a salary equal to that theretofore allowed to the Commissioner, 'in the work under the said Mayor and said person shall have the right to continue in said service during good behavior until the next general election of officers in said municipality'. Appellant was the person thus described, and accordingly, in January, 1935, the Commission Council adopted an ordinance reciting the statutory provisions and providing for the employment of appellant as Superintendent of Public Parks and Streets, under the Mayor, 'at the same salary now provided for the Commissioner of Public Parks and Streets, his employment to continue during good behavior and until the next general election for municipal officers'. Appellant accepted the employment and entered upon the discharge of his duties, as to the faithful performance of which no question is raised.
The state court held that the position in question was 'in the nature of a public office' with governmental functions and that the legislative action in abolishing it did not contravene the constitutional provision as to impairment of contracts. The court referred to the provision of the Act of 1912 abovementioned that 'all of the powers and authority' conferred upon the City by its charter, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, were declared to be 'reserved to the City unimpaired' to be exercised by the Mayor and Commission Council. Further, that by the charter of the City (Section 7 of Act No. 169 of 1898) it was provided 'that the 'employees' of the city are removable as therein specified' and that by a subsequent provision it was declared that 'all officers elected by the Council shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Opinion of the Justices
...220 Mass. 416, 107 N.E. 985, Ann.Cas.1917A, 492;Newton v. Mahoney County Commissioners, 100 U.S. 548, 25 L.Ed. 710;Higginbotham v. Baton Rouge, 59 S.Ct. 705, 83 L.Ed. 968 (decided April 17, 1939). We are not dealing with the right of women to hold public office, as that is settled by an ame......
-
Legislature v. Eu
...protects the salary or pension rights of state public officials such as legislators. (See, e.g., Higginbotham v. Baton Rouge (1939) 306 U.S. 535, 538-539, 59 S.Ct. 705, 706-707, 83 L.Ed. 968, rehg. den.307 U.S. 649, 59 S.Ct. 831, 83 L.Ed. 1529 [hereafter Higginbotham ]; Dodge v. Board of Ed......
-
Washington University v. Gorman
...153 S.W.2d 35 348 Mo. 310 The Washington University v. H. J. Gorman, City Treasurer of Kansas City, and Frank McCabe, City Assessor of Kansas City, ... v ... New York, 303 U.S. 573, 82 L.Ed. 1024; Higginbotham ... v. Baton Rouge, 306 U.S. 530, 83 L.Ed. 968; American ... Toll Bridge ... ...
-
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew
...Line R. Co. v. Page 722 Phillips, 332 U.S. 168, 170, 67 S.Ct. 1584, 1585, 91 L.Ed. 1977 (1947); Higginbotham v. City of Baton Rouge, La., 306 U.S. 535, 538--539, 59 S.Ct. 705, 706, 83 L.Ed. 968 (1939); Coombes v. Getz, 285 U.S. 434, 441, 51 S.Ct. 435, 436, 76 L.Ed. 866 (1932); Larson v. Sta......