Householder v. Morrill
| Decision Date | 08 June 1895 |
| Citation | 40 P. 664,55 Kan. 317 |
| Parties | M. A. HOUSEHOLDER v. E. N. MORRILL, as Governor of the State of Kansas |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
THE material facts are stated in the opinion herein, filed June 8, 1895.
W. C Webb, for plaintiff.
F. B Dawes, attorney general, and A. A. Godard, for defendant.
OPINION
It is alleged in the alternative writ of mandamus issued in this case that the plaintiff was on the 4th of March, 1893, duly appointed by the governor as one of the trustees of the benevolent and charitable institutions of the state; that he was confirmed by the senate, and duly commissioned as such trustee for the term of three years commencing on the 1st of April, 1893. It further appears from the writ that charges were preferred against the plaintiff, and a committee of members of the legislature was thereupon appointed to investigate said charges in accordance with the provisions chapter 239 of the Laws of 1889, and that the governor served the notice on the plaintiff stating that by authority of law he was suspended as a member of the board of charities; that by reason of such order of the governor the plaintiff has been prevented from discharging his duties as such trustee; and it is alleged that such suspension was without lawful warrant or authority. It is contended that chapter 239 of the Laws of 1889 has no application to members of the board of charities, (1) because the constitution creates the office of the trustees of benevolent institutions and provides for the impeachment of the governor and all other officers under the constitution. It is contended that, as there is no other provision in the constitution for their trial for misdemeanors in office, impeachment is the only remedy; (2) it is claimed that even if the constitutionality of the act be maintained it does not in terms apply to members of the board of charities, but only to the officers directly in charge of the several institutions, such as the superintendent, steward, etc. The view we take of this case renders an examination of the questions most discussed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff unnecessary. The only relief sought by the writ is that the governor be commanded to rescind or revoke his order suspending or purporting to suspend the plaintiff as trustee of the charitable and benevolent institutions. Section 688 of the code of civil procedure reads:
"The writ of mandamus may be issued by the supreme court or the district court, or any justice or judge thereof, during term or at chambers, to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, to compel the performance of any act which the law specially enjoins as a duty, resulting from an office, trust or station; but though it may require an inferior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Anderson v. Fadely
...department as this court stands as the head of the judicial and as the legislature stands as the head of the legislative, Householder v. Morrill, 55 Kan. 317, 40 P. 664; State ex rel. Stubbs v. Dawson, 86 Kan. 180, 119 P. 360, 39 L.R.A.N.S., 993, and who stands charged by the constitution w......
-
Martin v. Davis
...by law. Under that provision of the constitution, the supreme court stands at the head of the judicial department (Householder v. Morrill, 55 Kan. 317, 40 P. 664) and is invested with inherent power arising from its creation, or from the fact that it is a court. Inherent power is essential ......
-
State ex rel. Wehe v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
... ... Churchill v. Hay, 45 Neb. 321, 63 ... N.W. 821; State ex rel. Rawlinson v. Ansel, 76 S.C ... 395, 57 S.E. 185, 11 Ann. Cas. 613; Householder v ... Morrill, 55 Kan. 317, 40 P. 664; Cameron v ... Parker, 2 Okla. 277, 38 P. 14; Keenan v. Perry, ... 24 Tex. 253; Gray v. McLendon, ... ...
-
Hoffman v. Yoe
... ... warrant it. This is the effect of the decision of the supreme ... court in the case of Householder v. Morrill, 55 Kan ... 317, 40 P. 664. It was said there: ... "By the provisions of the statute under which the ... governor ... ...
-
Artificial People: Why Corporations Cannot Appear in Court Without a Lawyer
...by law. Under that provision of the constitution, the supreme court stands at the head of the judicial department (Householder v. Morrill, 55 Kan. 317, 40 P. 664) and is invested with inherent power arising from its creation, or from the fact that it is a court. Inherent power is essential ......
-
Artificial People: Why Corporations Cannot Appear in Court Without a Lawyer
...by law. Under that provision of the constitution, the supreme court stands at the head of the judicial department (Householder v. Morrill, 55 Kan. 317, 40 P. 664) and is invested with inherent power arising from its creation, or from the fact that it is a court. Inherent power is essential ......
-
Obituaries
...by law. Under that provision of the constitution, the supreme court stands at the head of the judicial department (Householder v. Morrill, 55 Kan. 317, 40 P.2d 66 (1895)) and is invested with inherent power arising from its creation, or from the fact that it is a court. Inherent power is es......