State ex rel. Addison v. Williams

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Berry, J.
• Citation: State ex rel. Addison v. Williams, 25 Minn. 340 (Minn. 1879)
• Decision Date: 10 January 1879
• Parties: State of Minnesota ex rel. Robert M. Addison v. James W. Williams and another

25 Minn. 340

State of Minnesota ex rel. Robert M. Addison v. James W. Williams and another

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 10, 1879

Mandamus to obtain possession of the records, etc., of the office of treasurer of Lyon county.

Proceedings dismissed.

Baxter & Quinn, for relator.

Gilman & Clough, for respondents.

OPINION

Berry J.

At the general election in November, 1876, the respondent Williams was duly elected treasurer of the county of Lyon, for a term regularly expiring in March, 1878. After qualifying, he entered upon the duties of his office, and he still continues to discharge the duties thereof, and remains in possession of the records and other property appertaining thereto.

At the general election in November, 1876, Williams, while county treasurer, was duly elected a member of the house of representatives of this state, and on January 8, 1878, he accepted such membership, entered upon its duties, and thereafter continued to discharge the same. On January 22, 1878, the board of county commissioners of Lyon county determined that by reason of Williams's election to the office of representative, his acceptance thereof, and entry upon its duties, a vacancy had been effected in the office of county treasurer, and thereupon they appointed the relator to fill it. A certificate of his appointment was delivered to the relator, by whom the appointment was thereupon accepted, and having duly qualified as provided by statute in the case of a county treasurer, and having notified the respondent Webster -- who had been appointed by Williams deputy treasurer, and who was in possession and charge of the records and other property of the county treasurer's office -- that he had been so appointed treasurer as aforesaid, he demanded possession of said records and property. Possession being withheld, he seeks to compel delivery of the same by the present proceeding in mandamus.

The action of the county board, in determining that the vacancy existed, was based upon the first clause of section 9, article 4 of our state constitution, which provides that "no senator or representative shall, during the time for which he is elected, hold any office under the authority of the United States, or the state of Minnesota, except that of postmaster."

The respondent Williams contends that the controversy before us is as to the title to the office of county treasurer, that the appropriate proceeding is therefore one in the nature of quo warranto, and that consequently the present proceeding by mandamus cannot be maintained. We think this is so. Unless his election to, his acceptance and entry upon the duties of the office of representative, operated to deprive Williams of the office of treasurer, the relator's appointment is an absolute nullity. The question whether the relator has any right to the office depends altogether upon whether Williams has any title to the same. That question lies at the threshold of the controversy. The relator cannot move a step until he has first made it to appear that Williams's title is at an end. Until he has done this his certificate of appointment is primafacie evidence of nothing. And right here lies the distinction between the case at bar and the class of cases represented by Crowell v....