Mial v. Ellington
Decision Date | 02 December 1903 |
Citation | 46 S.E. 961,134 N.C. 131 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | MIAL. v. ELLINGTON et al. |
PUBLIC OFFICE—LEGISLATIVE CONTROL— PROPERTY RIGHTS.
1. An officer appointed for a definite time to a public office has not a vested property interest therein, or contract right thereto, of which the Legislature cannot deprive him. Montgomery and Douglas, JJ., dissenting.
¶ 1. See Constitutional Law, vol. 10, Cent Dig. §§ 856, 357.
Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Peebles, Judge.
Action by the state, on the relation of A. T. Mial, against J. C. Ellington and others. Judgment for defendants, and relator appeals. Affirmed.
This is a civil action In the nature of a quo warranto, tried upon the following agreed facts: At the session of 1889 (Pub. Laws, p. SCO, c. 363) an act was passed entitled, "An act providing an alternative method of constructing and keeping in repair the public roads of Kaleigh township, Wake county." It was provided by said act that the justices of the peace of Raleigh township should meet, and, if a majority so decided, adopt the method of keeping in repair the public roads of said township in accordance with the provisions of said act; that, when they had so adopted said method, it was by said act made the duty of the county commissioners at their regular meeting, and biennially thereafter, to appoint a supervisor of roads for said township; that said supervisor should bold his office for two years; that, in the event of a vacancy, the same should be filled by said board of commissioners. Provision was made for removal for cause, and upon notice. Said supervisor was required to qualify by taking the oath of office, and giving bond in an amount to be fixed by the board. The duties prescribed for said supervisor were that he should formulate a plan for the permanent improvement of the public roads of said township outside the city of Raleigh by the use of the labor of county convicts and workhouse hands, etc. He was required to disburse all funds paid to him upon the warrant of the county commissioners for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the said act, and to keep an account thereof, as well as a list of all tools, etc., in his possession, and to make a report thereof to the commissioners. The duties of said supervisor in all other respects were specifically pointed out in the several sections of said act. His compensation was to be fixed by the board of commissioners, but the same was not to exceed $750 per annum. Pursuant to the provisions of said act, the method prescribed therein for working the roads of Raleigh township was duly adopted by the justices of the peace, and a supervisor duly elected. At the session of 1801 (Pub. Laws, p. 182, c. 218) the maximum limit of the salary of the supervisor was fixed at $1,200. At the session of 1897 (Pub. Laws, p. 621, c. 434) the provisions of said act were extended three miles beyond the present limits of Raleigh township, in each direction. That at the regular meeting of the board of commissioners of Wake county held in December, 1902, one Bryant Harrison was appointed by the said board to be supervisor of roads of Raleigh township for a term of two years, commencing January 1, 1903. That the said board fixed his salary at $70 per month, and that the said Harrison duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such officer. That at the February meeting of said board of commissioners the said Harrison resigned the said office, to take effect on March 1, 1903, and thereupon the board accepted said resignation, and called a special meeting, to be held on February 21, 1903, to appoint a successor. That at said special meeting the relator, A. T. Mial, was duly appointed to fill out the said unexpired term, and his salary fixed at $70 per month. That he subsequently gave the required bond, took the oath of office, and was duly inducted therein, and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such officer. That at the session of 1903 the General Assembly enacted chapter 551, p. 931—an act entitled "An act to improve the public roads of Wake county." By said act it was provided that the board of county commissioners of Wake, in order to provide for the proper construction, improvement, and maintenance of the public roads of the county, That at the regular meeting of said board of commissioners held in April, 1903, the said board caused public notice to be given that at the regular May meeting of the said board a superintendent, of roads for Wake county, and three supervisors for the respective road districts of said county, would be elected by the said board, under said chapter 551, p. 931, Laws 1903, and, in pursuance of said notice, at said May meeting the board of commissioners elected the defendant J. 0. Ellington superintendent of roads for Wake county, and the defendant Alfred Jones supervisor for the Raleigh road district, and I. N. Bailey and A, R. Holloway supervisors for the Northern and Southern road districts of Wake county, respectively. That the relator, A. T. Mial, was not a candidate or applicant for either of these positions. That the defendants J. C. Ellington and Alfred Jones prior to the commencing of this action gave the bond and took the oath of office, and did all other acts required of them by the said act of March 6, 1903. Thereafter, on the 12th day of May, 1903, acting under the order of the defendants the board of county commissioners of Wake county, the said J. C. Ellington took possession of the teams and other property and effects belonging to Raleigh township, and then in the custody of the relator, A. T. Mial, by virtue of his office aforesaid, in the absence of said Mial and without his consent; and on the said 12th day of May the defendants the board of county commissioners of Wake county withdrew all the convicts, guards, and officers in their custody, and which worked upon the roads of Raleigh township, and over whom the relator, A. T. Mial, had supervision, and placed them under the charge and supervision of the defendant J. C. Ellington. That thereafter, on said May 12, 1903, the relator, A. T. Mial, demanded the return to him of all of the said property and effects, and that they give to him control of the convicts, guards, and officers, and that the same was refused by the defendants. That at the said May meeting, 1903, the board of commissioners of Wake county, in pursuance of the said act of March 6, 1903, fixed the boundaries of the Northern and Southern road districts of Wake county (the boundaries of the Raleigh road...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fugate v. Weston
... ... The only State in which the contrary was ever held was North Carolina, and in the later case of Mial Ellington, ... Page 145 ... 134 N.C. 131, 46 S.E. 961, 65 L.R.A. 697, the view previously expressed was positively repudiated. Note, 4 A.L.R ... ...
-
Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc.
..."in the uncontrolled exercise of its power"); Hoke v. Henderson, 15 NC (4 Dev.) 1, 12 (1833) rev'd on other grounds Mial v. Ellington, 134 N.C. 131, 46 S.E. 961 (1903) (phrase "law of the land" does not mean any act of general Notwithstanding their duty to determine whether legislatively en......
-
Harper v. Hall
...be, the result of the most careful, cautious, and anxious deliberation."), overruled in part on other grounds by Mial v. Ellington , 134 N.C. 131, 162, 46 S.E. 961, 971 (1903) ; Trs. of Univ. of N.C. v. Foy , 5 N.C. 58, 89 1805 (Hall, J., dissenting) ("A question of more importance than tha......
-
Rabon v. Rowan Memorial Hospital, Inc., 605
...'the gravity of the proposition that we shall reverse a decision of this court' as Connor, J., said in Mial v. Ellington, 134 N.C. 131, 139, 46 S.E. 961, 963--964, 65 L.R.A. 697, reversing Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 1. Nevertheless, when the duty has seemed clear, it has done so, recognizin......
-
VESTED RIGHTS, "FRANCHISES," AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
...statute, but endorsing a limited version of the idea that "an office is deemed the subject of property"), overruled by Mial v. Ellington, 46 S.E. 961 (N.C. (251) See MECHEM, supra note 250, at 287 ("[W]here the appointment or election is made for a definite term or during good behavior, and......