People ex rel. Dunn v. Bunker

Headnote

Immigration Commissioner—Fees for Inspection of Passengers — State may Recover from Commissioner.—The commissioner of immigration of the port of San Francisco cannot justify his refusal to pay into the state treasury the fees collected by him under section 2955 of the Political Code, for the inspection of passengers on vessels arriving in that port from foreign ports, on the ground that the section is unconstitutional and the collections illegal, or because the hoard of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco had failed to establish a lazaretto or lepers’ quarters as required by the Section.

Id.—Action to Collect Fees—Unpaid Deputies’ Salaries—Attorney’s Fee. —In an action by the controller against the commissioner to recover the fees so collected, the defendant is not entitled to credit for items alleged by him to he due for unpaid deputies’ salaries and attorney’s fees in an action against him as commissioner.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The defendant was the commissioner of immigration for the port of San Francisco from January 19,1880, to March 15,1883. Between those dates, as such officer, he

collected $40,871.60 from the masters, owners, and consignees of vessels arriving at the port of San Francisco from foreign ports and places, on account of passengers inspected by him on board of the vessels, according to the provisions of section 2955 of the Political Code. On the 1st of February, 1883, the controller demanded of the defendant that he account to him for all moneys so collected, and that he pay into the state treasury the surplus, after deducting his salary and the expenses of his office. This the defendant refused to do; whereupon the controller, proceeding under section 437 of the Political Code, stated an account with the defendant, and after another demand, instituted this action against him. On the trial, there was a written admission filed and put in evidence, which disposed of all questions of account between the defendant and the state, except as to certain credits claimed by him to be due for unpaid deputies’ salaries and for the fees of his attorney in an action against him as commissioner to recover the amount of fees paid him under protest. The court disallowed these items, and rendered judgment against the defendant for the amount of the fees collected by him, less his salary- and his office expenses actually paid. At the time the demands were made on the defendant for an accounting, no lazaretto or lepers’ quarters had been established by the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, as required by section 2955 of the Political Code. The further facts are stated in the opinion.