Taaffe v. Ryan

• Citation: 25 Mo.App. 563
• Parties: PATRICK J. TAAFFE, Appellant, v. JEREMIAH RYAN, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 19 April 1887
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

25 Mo.App. 563

PATRICK J. TAAFFE, Appellant, v. JEREMIAH RYAN, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

April 19, 1887

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, GEORGE W. LUBKE, Judge.

Affirmed.

C. C SIMMONS, for the appellant.

FRANK K. RYAN, for the respondent.

OPINION

ROMBAUER J.

The proceeding in this case was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant, to contest the title of the latter to the office of justice of the peace, for the fifth district of the city of St. Louis, both parties claiming title to the office by virtue of an election held in said district on the second day of November, 1886, the defendant holding the certificate of election.

The plaintiff's petition states facts, which, if proved entitle him to the office; and the only question for decision is, whether the circuit court erred in dismissing the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

We avail ourselves of the following part of a written opinion filed by the judge of the circuit court, in the case, upon disposing of it, as above stated, because it contains a correct statement of the law, and is a fitting introduction to the few additional observations which we feel called upon to make:

" There is a well defined difference between proceedings in quo warranto and those known as contests of election. The former are begun by the public prosecutor, in the name of the state, and are designed, principally, to oust one from an office which he can show no lawful warrant or authority for holding; in the latter, the state is not a party, but the respective individual claimants to an elective office are the adversaries. And, although the proceedings in quo warranto may result in placing the actually elected candidate into the office from which the defeated candidate has been ousted by the writ of quo warranto, this result does not destroy the distinctive independent, character of the proceeding called a contest of election. The case now before the court is of this class. The contestant, Taaffe, and the contestee, Ryan, were respectively candidates for justice of the peace of the fifth district, being the First and Seventeenth wards of this city, at the general election on November second, last. Ryan received the certificate of election, qualified, and is now in possession of the office, and Taaffe, by the proceeding at bar, is seeking to establish a better title to the office. The contestee, Ryan, has interposed a motion to quash the notice of contest, and all proceedings thereon, in this court, on the ground alleged by him that this court is without jurisdiction in such a case. This motion has been argued and submitted for decision.

" The constitution of this state, adopted in 1875, provides, in section 9, of article 8, that the trial and determination of contested elections of all public officers, whether state, judicial, municipal, or local, except governor and lieutenant-governor, shall be by the courts of law, or by one or more of the judges thereof; and that the General Assembly shall, by general law, designate the court or judge by whom the several classes of election contests shall be tried, and regulate the manner of trial, and all matters incident thereto.

" In obedience to this command, the General Assembly, in the revision of the statute laws of the state, in 1879, vested in the several circuit courts of the state jurisdiction in all cases of contested elections for county offices; and vested in the county courts jurisdiction in cases of contested elections of township offices. Rev. Stat., sect. 5528. And the General Assembly have continued in force, to this date, the statute especially applicable to justices of the peace, by which it is provided that, whenever two or more persons shall have an equal number of votes for justice of the peace, for any township, or there is a contested election for

...