Crozier v. Lyon

• Decision Date: 05 October 1887
• Citation: 72 Iowa 401,34 N.W. 186
• Parties: CROZIER v. LYON, AUDITOR OF STATE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

72 Iowa 401

34 N.W. 186

CROZIER

v.LYON, AUDITOR OF STATE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 5, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Polk county.

At the general election in the year 1884, the plaintiff was duly elected to the office of circuit judge, in the Second circuit of the Sixth judicial district in this state. He entered upon the discharge of his duties as such judge, and received the salary provided by law for said office until January, 1887, at which time a law went into effect which abolished the circuit court as one of the courts of the state. The plaintiff, claiming that the office of circuit judge has not been abolished by any act of the legislature, and that he is still entitled to the salary affixed to said office, demanded of the defendant, who is auditor of state, a warrant for such salary for the month of January, 1887 The defendant refused to issue the warrant, and thereupon this action of mandamus was commenced, to compel the defendant to issue the same. The defendant claimed, in his answer, that he had no authority to issue such warrant, because the office of circuit judge had been abolished by act of the legislature. There was a demurrer to the answer, which was overruled, and plaintiff appeals.Philips & Day, for appellant.

A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ROTHROCK, J.

By chapter 134, Acts 21st Gen. Assem., the judicial system of this state was reorganized, and the circuit court was abolished. It was provided in section 1 of said act “that on and after the first day of January, 1887, the circuit court of the state of Iowa shall be abolished;” and section 8 of the act provided as follows: “All the rights, duties, and powers, and jurisdiction now by law belonging to, or vested in, or exercised by, the circuit court, shall, upon and after the first day of January, 1887, be transferred to, conferred upon, and exercised by, the district court; and all causes, proceedings, and remedies of every kind pending or undetermined in the circuit court at said date shall stand for trial and disposition in the district court, as if originally brought therein.” The act did not in terms abolish the office of circuit judge, and the question to be determined is, was the office abolished by the provisions of the statute above cited?

It is conceded that, in the absence of a constitutional restriction, the general assembly may abolish any office created by legislative authority. The constitution of this state in section 1, art. 5, provides that “the judicial department shall be vested in a supreme court, district court, and such other courts, inferior to the supreme court, as the general assembly may from time to time establish.” Section 10 of said article provides that “the state shall be divided into 11 judicial districts; and after the year 1860 the general assembly may reorganize the judicial districts, and increase or diminish the number of districts, or the number of judges of said court, and may increase the number of judges of the supreme court; but such increase or diminution shall not be more than one district, or one judge of either court, at any one session, and no reorganization of the districts or diminution of the judges shall have the effect of removing a...