In Whitmore v. Mayor ( 67 N.Y. 21) it was held that clerks of the District Courts of the city of New York were not city officers, but officers embraced within the judiciary system of the state. The same point was decided in Quin v. Mayor (44 How. Pr. 266), affirmed in this court ( 53 N.Y. 627), and in Landon v. Mayor (7 J. S. 467), and it has been said that this cannot now be considered an open question (13 Hun, 398). The principle upon which this conclusion rests is that the judicial department, which embraces the officers of all courts, whether of general or limited jurisdiction, is a part of the general government of the state, since their functions are administered for the benefit and protection of the people at large. There may be a certain degree of locality in the organization and powers of inferior courts, but they are not for that reason dissevered from the general judicial department of the state.

zed in article VI, section 15, of the New York State Constitution. The clerks, assistant clerks and attendants of the Surrogate's Court are also State officers. The Appellate Division affirmed the order on the opinion of the Special Term. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, the memorandum stating (p. 637): "The Special Term held that section 149-a of the Charter of New York city, which provides for the furnishing of detailed reports as required by the comptroller, was not applicable to the surrogates of New York county, inasmuch as the surrogates were not county but judicial officers of the State and, therefore, both the surrogates and their employees are State officers and employees." Ledwith v. Rosalsky ( 244 N.Y. 406) decided that a judge of the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York was not an officer in the service of the city or county of New York. The opinion (p. 411) cited Whitmore v. Mayor ( 67 N.Y. 21), wherein it was determined upon the authority of Quin v. Mayor, etc. (44 How. Pr. 266; affd., 53 N.Y. 627) that clerks of the District Courts of the city were judicial officers, embraced within the judiciary system of the State.

"Third: That the general council of the city has unlawfully delegated to the mayor the power to fix the rate of interest in said bonds. "The identical objection was made, and rejected, in Hunter v. Quin, Mayor, 208 Ky. 744, 271 S.W. 1060. "Demurrer of defendants to the petition is sustained.