State v. Mason
Decision Date | 13 March 1900 |
Citation | 155 Mo. 486,55 S.W. 636 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. McCAFFERY et al. v. MASON, Auditor. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
In banc. Original application by the state, on the relation of James McCaffery and others, against Isaac M. Mason, auditor, etc., for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel him to audit relators' claim for election expenses. Granted.
The Attorney General, Sam B. Jeffries, and W. J. Stone, for relators. B. Schnurmacher, Geo. D. Reynolds, Noble & Shields, and Morton Jourdan, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in this court, its object being to compel the city auditor to audit a certain bill of expenses incurred by relators, as the board of election commissioners, in and about the performance of their official duties in their capacity as such commissioners. The return of the city auditor, giving reasons for refusing to audit the bill in question, states in substance that the law under which such election commissioners were appointed and are acting is constitutionally invalid, for that in the course of its passage such proceedings were had as violated the constitution of this state in several particulars. The objections thus raised to the constitutional validity of the litigated act will now be discussed. That act is known as "House Bill No. 760," and is entitled "An act to provide for the registration of voters in cities now having or which hereafter may have three hundred thousand inhabitants or more; to provide for the creation of a board of election commissioners, provide for its appointment and define its duties; to govern elections in such cities, defining offenses and providing penalties therefor, and to prescribe rules and regulations governing registration and elections therein, and to repeal all acts and parts of acts in conflict or inconsistent herewith." Laws 1899, p. 179. Section 37 of article 4 of the constitution declares that:
Commenting on that portion of the organic law, when it first came under review, and within four years after the adoption of the constitution, this court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Roach
... ... Louis alone, and though such acts relate to primary and general elections in that city, is clear; for this court has several times had occasion to pass upon such laws and has held them good. State v. Fleming, 147 Mo. 1, 44 S. W. 758; State v. Mason, 155 Mo. 486, 55 S. W. 636. But having now upon the statute books such laws for that city (cf. sections 6013 et seq., R. S. 1909; section 6189 et seq., R. S. 1909), providing methods of holding primary elections (when not affected or abrogated by the general primary election law mentioned, supra), ... ...
-
State ex rel. Zoolog. Board v. City of St. Louis
... ... 9009 to 9016, R.S. 1919. (b) The duties of respondents are definite and ministerial. Mandamus will lie to compel performance of them. 38 C.J. 772; State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 55. (c) A similar statute, the Art Museum Statute, was upheld and respondents were compelled, by mandamus, to levy, collect and set aside a similar tax. State ex rel. Bixby v. St. Louis, 241 Mo. 231. (d) Relators have sued as a board and as citizens and taxpayers, on behalf of themselves ... ...
-
State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis
... ... 38 C.J. 772; 26 Cyc. 320; State ex rel. v. Patton, 108 Mo. App. 31; State ex rel. v. Riley, 85 Mo. 156; State ex rel. v. Byers, 67 Mo. 706; State ex rel. v. Tracy, 94 Mo. 217; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 241 Mo. 231; State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 55. And mandamus will issue to compel a city council or other local legislative body to pass an ordinance levying a tax, where it is their duty to do so. 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.) 864; Stevens v. Miller, 3 Kan. App. 192; Phelps v. Lodge, 60 Kan. 122; State ex rel. v. City Council, 22 ... ...
-
Bowers v. Mo. Mutual Assn.
... ... Keller v. Home Ins. Co., 95 Mo. App. 627, 69 S.W. 612; Lee v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co., 261 S.W. 83; Haseltine v. Farmers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Billings, 253 S.W. 810; Beazell v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 214 Mo. App. 430, ... [See, also, State ex rel. McCaffery v. Mason, 155 Mo. 486, 500, 55 S.W. 636; State ex rel. Johnston v. Caulfield, 245 Mo. 676, 697, 150 S.W. 1047.] ... We agree with the ... ...