Snow v. Hudson.==Same
| Citation | 43 P. 260,56 Kan. 378 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1896 |
| Docket Number | 10368,10369 |
| Parties | E. H. SNOW v. J. K. HUDSON.--SAME v. W. C. EDWARDS, as Secretary of State |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Decided January, 1896.
THESE two cases were tried and submitted together. The first is an action in the nature of quo warranto, brought by E. H. Snow against J. K. Hudson, to try the title to and recover possession of the office of state printer. The second is an action also brought by Snow against W. C. Edwards, as secretary of state, to compel him to recognize Snow as state printer, and deal with him accordingly. The defendants deny the plaintiff's title to the office, and this is the main question in both cases. Although quite a number of depositions and quite an amount of documentary evidence have been introduced on both sides, there is no controversy upon any material question of fact. On the third Tuesday in January, 1889, Clifford C. Baker was duly elected to the office of state printer, having received the votes of 37 senators and 121 representatives, being all the votes cast by members of each house. He thereafter qualified, took possession of the office, and discharged its duties for the ensuing regular term commencing on the 1st of July after his election. On the third Tuesday in January, 1891, a joint session of the legislature was held, at which there were present 39 senators and 125 members of the house. The plaintiff, E. H. Snow, received the vote of one senator and of 100 representatives. He was declared elected for the term beginning July 1, 1891.
The only record of any joint convention for the election of a state printer in 1893 is of a meeting by 24 senators with what is known as the "Dunsmore House," on Friday the 27th of January, 1893. Mr. Snow received all the votes cast by this convention, but it is not now claimed on his behalf that the proceedings were of any validity. On December 12, 1894, the plaintiff tendered his resignation of the office of state printer to the governor, giving as his reason for so doing that his title to the office was questioned. Governor Lewelling thereupon issued a commission, reciting that a vacancy existed in the office of state printer, and appointing the plaintiff to fill such vacancy for the unexpired term, and until his successor should be elected and qualified. Snow thereupon executed a bond in due form, and took the oath of office, and continued to act as state printer as he had done before. On Tuesday, January 15, 1895 a resolution in the following form was passed by the house of representatives, as house concurrent resolution No. 3:
"Resolved By the house of representatives, the senate concurring therein, that the senate and house of representatives meet in representative hall in joint session at 12 o'clock M. this day, Tuesday, January 15, 1895, for the purpose of electing a state printer."
This resolution having been sent to the senate, a substitute therefor was offered and adopted, in the following form:
"Resolved, That the senate and house of representatives meet at 12 o'clock M. in representative hall, for the purpose of electing a state printer for the term beginning July 1, 1895, and ending July 1, 1897, and that we continue to so meet from day to day until some person shall have been elected by a concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each body; and the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives are each hereby instructed not to issue a certificate of election to any person until he shall have received the affirmative vote of at least 21 senators and 63 representatives."
This substitute was not acted on in the house, nor was any further action taken on the resolution by either body. At 12 o'clock the president of the senate announced that, the hour having arrived for the election of state printer, the senate would take a recess until 2 o'clock P. M. The president of the senate and a number of the senators then left the senate chamber and proceeded to representative hall. The journal of the senate shows that Senator Dennison appealed from the decision of the chair; that the president pro tem. then took the chair; that the question was put, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained? and that a majority having not voted to sustain the chair, the chair was not sustained." The journal of the house shows that a joint convention was held, over which the lieutenant-governor presided; that there were present 16 senators and 122 members of the house; that J. K. Hudson received the votes of 13 senators and 91 representatives; that he was thereupon declared by the president of the joint convention duly elected state printer, and thereafter received a certificate of his election, signed by the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives, as provided by law. He afterward executed an official bond, which was duly approved, and took the prescribed oath of office.
On the 20th of June, 1895, an action was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, Hudson and Edwards, to enjoin Hudson from taking possession and exercising the duties of the office of state printer, and Edwards, as secretary of state, from recognizing him as such. The ground upon which this injunction was asked was, that the plaintiff was in the possession of the office and entitled to discharge its duties and receive its emoluments, and that the defendant Hudson claimed to have been elected to the office, and threatened to take possession thereof on the ensuing 1st day of July, and that the defendant Edwards intended to officially recognize him as such officer. A hearing was had before the district court of Shawnee county on an application for a temporary injunction, which was refused. The defendant thereafter answered, setting up his title to the office. The action last named was pending at the time these cases were brought in this court, but was dismissed by the plaintiff on the 6th of September. On the 1st of July, 1895, the defendant Hudson assumed the duties of the office of state printer, was recognized by the defendant Edwards as such officer, and has ever since acted as such. The exact date on which the plaintiff first took possession of the office of state printer is not shown, nor is there any evidence as to the particular manner of Baker's leaving the office. The opinion herein was filed January 11, 1896.
G. C. Clemens, and David Overmyer, for plaintiff.
Waggener, Horton & Orr, and Troutman, McKeever & Stone, for defendants.
F. B. Dawes, attorney general, for defendant Edwards.
The questions involved in these cases are of a delicate character, involving, as they do, the validity of the proceedings of the legislative department of the state government. On consultation, a quite unusual diversity of opinion is found to exist among the members of the court, and, in order to make known the conclusions reached on the various branches of the case, it will be necessary to depart somewhat from the usual custom in writing an opinion.
An objection is made on behalf of the defendants to any consideration of the merits of these cases, on the ground that the prior action, commenced in the district court of Shawnee county to enjoin the defendant Hudson from taking possession of the office, and the defendant Edwards from recognizing him as state printer, abates the present actions. The relief sought in that case was quite different from that asked in these cases. That action, having failed, was dismissed before the trial of these cases. The objection is untenable. The rights of the respective parties to the possession of the office of state printer could not be fully determined and settled in an action for injunction.
The office of state printer was established by an amendment to the state constitution, adopted in 1868, which appears as section 4 of article 15, and reads as follows:
In 1861 an act was passed with reference to holding joint conventions of the two houses of the legislature, which now appears as chapter 57 of the General Statutes of 1889. By section 6 of that act it is provided, "That to elect any person in said joint convention a majority voting in the affirmative of all the members elected to the two houses shall be necessary." In 1879 another act was passed, which now appears as paragraph 6074 of the General Statutes of 1889, which reads as follows:
The main questions for our consideration are:
(1) Whether the plaintiff, Snow, has shown that he ever had any valid title to the office; (2) whether the defendant Hudson was duly elected to the office.
In arriving at a decision of these main questions, various others of much doubt and difficulty must be considered. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaValle v. Hayden
...that the term "joint session" implies that the two houses of the Legislature meet together and commingle, acting as one body (Snow v. Hudson, 56 Kan. 378, 386-387 ), and that a quorum of a joint session composed of the two separate houses of the Legislature is simply a majority of the combi......
-
Ex parte Hague
... ... In Snow v. Hudson, 56 Kan. 378, 386, 43 P. 260, 262, the court, in defining joint session, said: "The term 'joint session,' in our view, has a ... ...
-
Broughton v. Pursifull, Clerk
...Bloomer v. Canavan, 155 Wis. 398, 145 N.W. 44; Dapper v. Smith, 138 Mich. 104, 101 N.W. 60; Wright v. Noell, 16 Kan. 601; Snow v. Hudson, 56 Kan. 378, 43 P. 260. "Defendant calls attention to article 5, secs. 2, 5, and 6, of the Constitution, providing certain general disqualifications of e......
-
Anderson v. Krupsak
...the term 'joint session' implies that the two houses of the Legislature meet together and commingle, acting as one body (Snow v. Hudson, 56 Kan. 378, 386--387, 43 P. 260), and that a quorum of a joint session composed of the two separate houses of the Legislature is simply a majority of the......