Hecht v. Coale

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We have just held in the case of Vanneman v. Pusey, the case preceding this, that the defendant, Pusey, was duly qualified and, therefore, duly elected Mayor of Havre de Grace. The case now before us depends largely upon the facts involved in the case just mentioned, and in this, as in the former case, title to a public office is involved. Isaac Hecht was appointed Treasurer of Havre de Grace by the Mayor of that city according to provisions of the new charter; sec. 145, Art. 13, Public Local Laws (Harford County) which provides that the Mayor shall appoint, among other officers, a Treasurer, and present the name of his appointee to the City Council for confirmation or rejection.

It appears that in pursuance of the duty thus prescribed the Mayor, Clarence C. Pusey, appointed the plaintiff, Mr. Hecht, as Treasurer, and duly presented his name for confirmation, but upon this question there was a tie vote, three of the City Council voting for and three against the confirmation of the Mayor’s appointee. At a subsequent meeting the same situation was presented, when the Mayor claimed the right to vote and cast his vote in favor of Mr. Hecht, thus securing the confirmation of his appointee. Having been thus appointed by the Mayor, and his appointment having been thus confirmed by the City Council, the plaintiff filed , his bond as Treasurer of Havre de Grace, and demanded of William N. Coale, who had been acting as Treasurer of that city, that he should give up and vacate the said office and permit him, the said Hecht, to occupy the same and perform the duties thereof and to take and have possession of the money and securities, &c., belonging thereto. This demand was refused, and the plaintiff filed his petition for mandamus, setting forth the above facts and others not necessary now further to recount.

It is sufficient to say that the ⁶⁹⁴ defendant answered, and the case was heard by the Court without a jury. An order was passed dismissing the petition, and the plaintiff appealed. Having already held in the former case that Clarence C. Pusey who appointed the plaintiff Treasurer, was duly qualified and elected as Mayor, we need now only consider, ■ First, whether the Mayor was authorized by the charter to vote, in case of a tie vote, on the confirmation of his own appointment, and if so, secondly, whether the bond filed by the plaintiff as Treasurer is a sufficient compliance with Ordinance 91. 1. The language of sec. 180, Art. 13, is as follows: “In case of a tie vote in the City Council, upon any question whatever, the Mayor shall have the right to vote and shall decide the question in dispute.” In our opinion this provision of the charter is too clear to admit of doubt.

Independent of authority, therefore, the Mayor must be held to have legally voted and decided the question