The term of office, therefore, of a public official may be terminated by the enactment of legislation either abolishing the office or extending or diminishing the length of its term.193 Such action on the part of the legislature cannot occasion or create a claim in favor of an officer whose official life may be thus involuntarily and abruptly terminated.194 § 631. Expiration of term of office. The phrase, term of office, in this connection, is usually understood to apply to a fixed and certain term established by law for the performance of certain official duties,195 which if done for the App. Div. 584, 76 N. Y. Supp. 205; State v. Wilson, 121 N. C. 480, 28 S. E. 554; State v. Jennings, 57 Ohio St. 415, 49 N. E. 404; City of San Antonio v. Micklejohn, 89 Tex. 79; McAllister v. Swan, 16 Utah, 1, 50 Pac. 812; Pratt v. Swan, 16 Utah, 483, 52 Pac. 1092. 193 Beebe v. Robinson, 64 Ala. 171; Hale v. McGettigan, 114 Cal. 112, 45 Pac. 1049; Dillon v. Bicknell, 116 Cal. 111, 47 Pac. 937; In re House Bill No. 38, 9 Colo. 631, 21 Pac. 474; Collins v. Russell, 107 Ga. 423, 33 S. E. 444; Blodgett v. Board of Education, 105 Ga. 463; Springfield Water Com'rs v. People, 137 Ill. 660, 27 N. E. 698; People v. Brown, 83 Ill. 95; State v. Menaugh, 151 Ind. 260, 51 N. E. 117, 357, 43 L. R. A. 408; State v. Hyde, 121 Ind. 20, 22 N. E. 644; Sinking Fund Com'rs v. George, 20 Ky. L. R. 938, 47 S. W. 779; State v. Capdevielle, 104 La. Ann. 561, 29 So. 215; O'Leary v. Board of Fire & Water Com'rs, 79 Mich. 281, 7 L. R. A. 170; State v. Starkey, 49 Minn. 503, 52 N. W. 24; Primm v. City of Carondelet, 23 Mo. 22. The appointment of one to the office of city attorney for the term of one year at a salary settled by city or dinance with an acceptance of the office does not constitute a contract which precludes the city from abol ishing the office before the expiration of the term. State v. Page, 20 Mont. 238, 50 Pac. 719; State v. Board of Public Lands, 7 Neb. 42; State v. Stewart, 52 Neb. 243, 71 N. W. 998; Demarest v. Wickham, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 627; People v. Sutton, 9 App. Div. 250, 41 N. Y. Supp. 398; People v. Sturges, 21 Misc. 605, 47 N. Y. Supp. 999; People v. Lane, 53 App. Div. 531, 65 N. Y. Supp. 1004; Long v. City of New York, 81 N. Y. 425; Koch v. City of New York, 152 N. Y. 72, 46 N. E. 170; People v. Dooley, 171 N. Y. 74, 63 N. E. 815; State v. Harris, 1 N. D. 190, 45 N. W. 1101; Bryan v. Patrick, 124 N. C. 651, 33 S. E. 151; Dalby v. Hancock, 125 N. C. 325, 34 S. E. 516; State v. Bailey, 37 Ohio St. 98; Kuhlman v. Smeltz, 171 Pa. 440; State v. Smith, 4 Wash. 661, 30 Pac. 1064; State v. Twichel, 9 Wash. 530, 38 Pac. 134. 194 In re Resolution Relating to Senate Bill No. 45, 12 Colo. 339, 21 Pac. 485; Lowe v. Com., 60 Ky. (3 Metc.) 237. 195 Speed v. Crawford, 60 Ky. (3 Metc.) 207; Gibbs v. Morgan, 39 N. J. Eq. 126. A deputy clerk who holds his office at the pleasure of 1 time designated or until the time designated will terminate a further right to perform such duties.196 This rule is modified in many cases by the provision that public officers or certain ones designated shall perform the duties of their office until their successors have been duly elected or appointed and have qualified.197 the county clerk has no "term of office." People v. Lacombe, 99 N. Y. 43. See note 30 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 351. 196 Ruggles v. Trustees of City of Woodland, 88 Cal. 430, 26 Pac. 520; State v. Pinkerman, 63 Conn. 176, 22 L. R. A. 653. An appointment for a vacancy is good only to the end of the unexpired term; not for the full term as established by law for such office. Opinion of the Justices, 16 Fla. 841. The converse rule also holds that a public official holds or may hold the office for the full period as fixed by the constitution. Barrett v. State, 112 Ind. 322, 13 N. E. 677. Construing Ind. Acts, 1885, p. 69; Hench v. State, 72 Ind. 297; McDermott v. City of Louisville, 17 Ky. L. R. .617, 32 S. W. 264; Edison v. Almy, 66 Mich. 329, 33 N. W. 509; State v. Lund, 167 Mo. 228, 66 S. W. 1062, 67 S. W. 572. Where the term of an appointed officer is fixed by law with a provision for holding over, the inconvenience that results to the public from the office being vacant is no defense in a proceeding by the state in the nature of quo warranto. People v. Stone, 78 Mich. 635; Bilderback v. Chosen Freeholders of Salem County, 63 N. J. Law, 55, 42 Atl. 843; People v. Tieman, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 193; People v. Feitner, 27 Misc. 153, 57 N. Y. Supp. 807; State v. Knight, 31 S. C. 81, 9 S. E. 692; Pettigrew v. Bell, 34 S. C. 104, 12 S. E. 1023; In re Con struction of School Law, c. 9, § 7, 2 S. D. 71, 48 N. W. 812; State v. Sheldon, 8 S. D. 525, 67 N. W. 613; State v. Williford, 104 Tenn. 694, 58 S. W. 295; Smith v. Cosgrove, 71 Vt. 196, 44 Atl. 73; State v. McKone, 95 Wis. 216, 70 N. W. 164. a 197 Barkley v. Levee Com'rs, 93 U. S. 258. Where the functions of public corporation have been abrogated and there is no provision of law authorizing another election, the doctrine of corporate officials holding over cannot be applied. See, also, as holding the same, People v. Feitner, 30 App. Div. 241, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1094, affirmed 15% N. Y. 694; Ward v. City of Elizabeth, 121 N. C. 1, 27 S. E. 993, and Com. v. Wyman, 137 Pa. 508. Advisory Opinion to Governor, 31 Fla. 1, 5 So. 613; People v. Murray, 15 Cal. 221; People v. Oulton, 28 Cal. 44; People v. Rodgers, 118 Cal. 393, 46 Pac. 740, 50 Pac. 668. Such a provision will not apply when one has surrendered his office and he is not entitled to it on his successor being declared ineligible. People v. Tyrrell, 87 Cal. 475; People v. Edwards, 93 Cal. 153. A constitutional provision fixing the term of office does not prevent one from holding over beyond that time until his successor has been chosen and has qualified. People v. Knight, 116 Cal. 108, 47 Pac. 925; Ter. v. Hand, 1 Dak. 437; State v. Murphy, 32 Fla. 138, 13 So. 705; People v. Town of Fairbury, 51 Ill. 149; People v. Blair, 82 Ill. App. This principle proceeds upon the doctrine that the necessity exists at all times for the performance of certain official or public duties. in connection with the administration of government and, therefore, the right as existing in some one person to perform these duties,198 570; People v. Barnett Tp. Sup'r, 100 Ill. 332; State v. Spears, 1 Ind. 515; Ham v. State, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 314; State v. Harrison, 113 Ind. 434, 16 N. E. 384. Construing Ind. Const. art. 15, §§ 2, 3; Gosman v. State, 106 Ind. 203; State v. Clendenning, 117 Ind. 111, 19 N. E. 623; School Town of Milford v. Powner, 126 Ind. 528. Officers holding over under such circumstances are officers de jure as well as de facto so long as they continue to perform the duties of the office. Sherman v. City of Des Moines, 100 Iowa, 88; State v. Albert, 55 Kan. 154; Lafferty v. Huffman, 18 Ky. L. R. 17, 35 S. W. 123; Rounds v. Smart, 71 Me. 380; People v. Lord, 9 Mich. 227; City of Grand Haven v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 128 .Mich. 106, 87 N. W. 104; State v. Lusk, 18 Mo. 333; Andrews v. State, 69 Miss. 740, 13 So. 853; Cordiell v. Frizell, 1 Neb. 130; State v. Boyd, 31 Neb. 682, 48 N. W. 739, 51 N. W. 602; Rightmire v. City Council of Camden, 50 N. J. Law, 43, 13 Atl. 30. Such a provision is not designed to authorize public officials to extend their term of office to their own advantage by neglecting or refusing to take certain steps relative to qualifying for office. De Lacey v. City of Brooklyn, 12 N. Y. Supp. 540; In re Bradley, 66 Hun, 629, 21 N. Y. Supp. 167; Cherry v. Burns, 124 N. C. 761, 33 S. E. 136; 198 Downing v. Rugar, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 178; People v. Nostrand, 46 State v. Cook, 20 Ohio St. 252; State v. Kearns, 47 Ohio St. 566, 25 N. E. 1027; State v. Wright, 56 Ohio St. 540; Eddy v. Kincaid, 28 Or. 537, 41 Pac. 156. The failure of an elec tive board to elect, at the time required, a railroad commissioner, does not create a vacancy in the office and the present incumbent is entitled to hold his office until his successor is "duly elected and qualified.." Com. v. O'Neal, 203 Pa. 132, 52 Atl. 134. A city councilman under such a provision continues to hold as a de jure officer where he is a candidate for re-election and receives the same number of votes as his opponent. Erb v. Com., 91 Pa. 212; Lowrey v. City of Central Falls, 23 R. I. 284, 49 Atl. 963; Macoy v. Curtis, 14 S. C. 367; State v. Wilson, 80 Tenn. (12 Lea) 246; Pratt v. Swan, 16 Utah, 483, 52 Pac. 1092. The rule also holds with respect to municipal officers. Ex parte Lawhorne, 18 Grat. (Va.) 85; Sinclair v. Young, 100 Va. 284, 40 S. E. 907; State v. Tallman, 24 Wash. 426, 64 Pac. 759. The failure to give bond by one holding over will not destroy his eligibility, the security being sufficient. State v. Daggett, 28 Wash. 1, 68 Pac. 340; State v. Meilike, 81 Wis. 574, 51 N. W. 875. Where candidates for an office receive a tie vote, the incumbent is entitled to hold over until his successor is duly elected N. Y. 375; People v. Palmer, 52 N. Y. 83. § 632. Term of office; uncertain. The term of office may also be uncertain in its duration depending upon the performance of the duties prescribed or upon the favor of the appointing power.199 Where a public office has been created for the sole purpose of performing certain duties of a temporary character, the completion of the work effects an expiration of the term of office.200 Where an official holds his office at the pleasure of an appointing power, his term of office is necessarily uncertain and is further limited in duration by the term of that officer.201 The retention in office of subordinate appointees upon a re-election by a public official is held the equivalent of a reappointment.202 The term of office considered with reference to its commencement. A particular term of office with respect to a performance and qualified. State v. McKone, 95 Wis. 216. But the rule stated in the text does not apply where there is constitutional provision limiting the time of holding office by an individual. 199 State v. Alt, 26 Mo. App. 673; Ward v. Elizabeth City, 121 N. C. 1; Com. v. Sutherland, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 145; Williams v. Boughner, 46 Tenn. (6 Cold.) 486; Pratt v. Swan, 16 Utah, 483. 200 Currier v. Boston & M. R. Co., 31 N. H. 209; Williams v. Bowman, 40 Tenn. (3 Head) 678. 201 City Council of Augusta v. Ramsey, 43 Ga. 140; Egan v. City of St. Paul, 57 Minn. 1, 58 N. W. 267; State v. Board of Public Lands, 7 Neb. 42; Greene v. Hudson County Freeholders, 44 N. J. Law, 388; McKenna v. City of New York, 34 App. Div. 152, 54 N. Y. Supp. 634; Field v. Girard College, 54 Pa. 233; Somers v. State, 5 S. D. 321, 58 N. W. 804; State v. Williford, 104 Tenn. 694, 58 S. W. 295; In re Richmond Mayoralty Case, 19 Grat. (Va.) 673; Hunter Trustees of Berkeley Springs, 47 W. Va. 343, 34 S. E. 729. 202 Hubert v. Mendheim, 64 Cal. V. 213, 30 Pac. 633; State v. City of St. Paul (Minn.) 84 N. W. 127; People v. Denman (Colo. App.) 65 Pac. 455; Ter. v. Hand, 1 Dak. 437; Bell v. State, 129 Ind. 1, 28 N. E. 302; Statev. Wells, 144 Ind. 231, 41 N. E. 461, 43 N. E. 133; State v. Harris, 152. Ind. 699, 52 N. E. 168; State v. Barlow, 103 Ind. 563; Weaver v. State, 152 Ind. 479, 53 N. E. 450. Construing "the term of a present incumbent" as found in Acts 1897, p. 288, § 1, relative to the terms of county treasurers. Aikman v. State, 152 Ind. 567, 53 N. E. 836; Moser v.. Shamleffer, 39 Kan. 635, 18 Pac. 956; Jackson v. City of Richmond, 22 Ky. L. R. 94, 56 S. W. 501; State v. McGovney, 92 Mo. 428, 3 S. W. 867; State v. Weatherby, 17 Neb. 553; State v. Smith, 35 Neb. 13, 52 N. W. 700, 16 L. R. A. 791; Haight v. Love, 39 N. J. Law, 14; People v. Randall, 151 N. Y. 497; State v. McCracken, 51 Ohio St. 123; State v. Bader, 58 Ohio St. 384, 50 N. E. 813; State v. Brown, 60 Ohio St. 499, 54 N. E. 467; State v. Simon, 20 Or. 365; State v. Taylor, 21 Wash. 672, 59 Pac. 489. of the duties may be uncertain as depending for its commencement upon some contingency, condition or shifting date, the happening of which will serve to operate as the authority for its commencement.203 The legislature under its absolute power has the right to fix the time for the commencement or ending of the terms of office of those not fixed by the constitution.204 In case of an appointment to office, the term begins as soon as the appointee is authorized by his own action to legally assume the duties of his office; not from the date of appointment or when he actually enters upon his office. 205 Where appointments or elections are made 203 Bruce v. Fox, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 447; Tatum v. Rivers, 66 Tenn. (7 Baxt.) 295. 204 State v. Menaugh, 151 Ind. 260, 51 N. E. 117, 43 L. R. A. 408; Scott v. State, 151 Ind. 556, 52 N. E. 163; State v. Wilson, 142 Ind. 102, 41 N. E. 361; Aikman v. State, 152 Ind. 567, 53 N. E. 836; State v. Wymen, 97 Iowa, 570, 66 N. W. 786; Sherman v. City of Des Moines, 100 Iowa, 88, 69 N. W. 410; State v. Robinson, 1 Kan. 17; Farrelly v. Cole, 60 Kan. 356, 56 Pac. 492; State v. Andrews, 69 Kan. 474, 67 Pac. 870; Commissioners of Sinking Fund v. George, 20 Ky. L. R. 938, 47 S. W. 779; Lafferty v. Huffman, 99 Ky. 80, 32 L. R. A. 203; Field v. Malster, 88 Md. 691, 41 Atl. 1087; Edison v. Almy, 66 Mich. 329, 33 N. W. 509; Hallgren v. Campbell, 82 Mich. 255, 46 N. W. 381, 9 L. R. A. 408; People v. Van Andon, 116 Mich. 654, 74 N. W. 1009; State v. Wimpfheimer, 69 N. H. 166, 38 Atl. 786; Bird v. Johnson, 59 N. J. Law, 59, 34 Atl. 929. Legislation extending a term of office is plainly prospective and does not enlarge the term of one legislated before its passage. Reid v. Gorsuch, 67 N. J. Law, 396, 51 Atl. 457; Bakely v. Nowrey, 68 N. J. Law, 95, 52 Atl. 289; People v. Lahr, 71 Hun, 271, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1020; People v. Erie County Sup'rs, 42 App. Div. 510, 59 N. Y. Supp. 476; State v. McCracken, 51 Ohio St. 123, 36 N. E. 941; Stone v. Reynolds, 7 Okl. 397, 54 Pac. 555; Com. v. Ricketts, 196 Pa. 598; State v. Lane, 16 R. I. 620, 18 Atl. 1035; State v. Sheldon, 8 S. D. 525; State v. Beardsley, 13 Utah, 502; Farrel v. Pingree, 5 Utah, 443, 16 Pac. 843. Legislation respecting tenure of office is prospective not retrospective and cannot affect the term of a treasurer elected prior to its enactment and which has not yet expired. Bartch v. Meloy, 8 Utah, 424, 32 Pac. 694. Where two acts relative to tenure of office are repugnant, the latter one will govern. State v. Beardsley, 13 Utah, 502, 45 Pac. 569; State v. Byrne, 98 Wis. 16, 73 N. W. 320. 205 Haight v. Love, 39 N. J. Law, 14; State v. Elliott, 13 Utah, 479, 45 Pac. 346. "So when a vacancy occurs, and a person is appointed to fill the same, the appointee is entitled to hold the office, not only until the expiration of the two years, but also until a successor is elected and qualified. It follows, therefore, that when a person is elected to office in Salt Lake City, or appointed to fill a vacancy, in either case, after qualifying, he is the lawful incumbent and entitled to hold the office, as against any |