State ex rel. Blue v. Waldo
Decision Date | 01 May 1928 |
Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI AT THE RELATION OF A. B. BLUE, RELATOR, v. E. E. WALDO, CITY PHYSICIAN AND HEALTH OFFICER OF THE CITY OF HANNIBAL, MISSOURI, RESPONDENT. [*] |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
ALTERNATIVE WRIT QUASHED. PEREMPTORY WRIT DENIED.
ALTERNATIVE WRIT QUASHED. PEREMPTORY WRIT DENIED.
Plowman & Schofield, E. W. Nelson and Lewis O'Connor for relator.
Harrison White for respondent and The City of Hannibal.
Ben Ely, Jr., Prosecuting Attorney, for the Marion County Health Unit.
Mandamus. Original Proceeding.
This is a proceeding by mandamus originally instituted in this court. Upon the filing of relator's petition, the alternative writ of this court issued. Respondent's return thereto was duly filed. To the return relator filed a demurrer. The cause has been submitted here on the conceded facts as shown by the alternative writ, the return, and the exhibits filed.
Relator owns and operates a large dairy farm in Marion county, outside the limits of the city of Hannibal, and has hitherto sold large quantities of milk and milk products, produced on said farm, to customers in said city, and by this proceeding he seeks to compel respondent to inspect, test, and grade the milk and milk products, produced on his said farm and offered for sale or distribution in said city, and to issue to him such permit for the sale and distribution of his said milk and milk products as such inspection, testing, and grading will warrant. Respondent is city physician of said city of Hannibal, and relator claims that respondent is also ex officio health officer of said city, and that, as such health officer, it is his duty to inspect, test, and grade the milk and milk products produced on said dairy farm and offered for sale or distribution in said city, and to issue to relator such permit for the sale and distribution of his said milk and milk products as such inspection, testing, and grading will warrant. Respondent admits that he is city physician of said city of Hannibal, but denies that he is ex officio health officer of said city, and says that Dr. E. M. Lucke is the health officer, whose duty it is to inspect, test, and grade milk and milk products offered for sale or distribution in said city, and to issue permits for the sale and distribution of milk and milk products in said city. It is conceded on all sides that the duty of inspecting, testing, and grading, and the issuing of permits, is devolved on the health officer of the city, so that the real question involved in controversy here is: Who is the health officer, Dr. E. M. Lucke or respondent?
It is not disputed that Dr. Lucke has for two years performed all the functions of health officer of the city under elections by the city council, and that during that time the respondent has performed the functions of city physician only. Relator contends that the office of health officer does not exist as a de jure office independent of the office of city physician, and that, therefore, Dr. Lucke is not and cannot be health officer either de jure or de facto. Respondent contends that the office of health officer exists independent of the office of city physician, and that Dr. Lucke is health officer of the city de facto et de jure. He also contends that if Dr. Lucke is not health officer de jure, he is at least health officer de facto, so that in any event title to office is involved, which may not be determined in a proceeding by mandamus. In view of these contentions, we will consider the pertinent ordinances of the city, along with the facts as disclosed by the alternative writ, the return thereto, and the exhibits filed.
Section 1 of article 1 of ordinance No. 1, entitled, "An Ordinance Relating to Officers," enacted in 1924, provides as follows:
"Every person elected or appointed to any office under the city government, shall be a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, and shall have resided in the city at least two years next preceding his election or appointment."
Section 7 of said article provides for the election by the city council of officers of the city annually as follows:
"Clerk, who shall also be Auditor and Purchasing Agent; Collector; Street Commissioner; Engineer who shall also be Sewer Commissioner; Physician; Assessor; Chief of Fire Department who shall also be Building Inspector; Humane Officer who shall also be Overseer of the Poor; and Inspector of Weights and Measures who shall also be Sanitary Policeman and Market Master."
Article 1 of ordinance No. 28, entitled "An Ordinance Concerning the Health Department and Board of Health," enacted in January, 1925, provides as follows:
. . . .
Article 2 of said ordinance No. 28 provides as follows:
Section 4 of article 3 of said ordinance No. 28, provides as follows:
Section 2 of article 8 of said ordinance No. 28 provides that the sanitary policeman shall be vested with power...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. McGaughey v. Grayston
... ... Laughlin, 7 Mo.App ... 529; 50 C. J. 692; 22 R. C. L. 17, sec. 15; State v ... Dawson, 333 Mo. 673, 63 S.W.2d 135; State ex rel ... Blue v. Waldo, 222 Mo.App. 396, 5 S.W.2d 653; State ... v. Kansas City, 319 Mo. 705, 7 S.W.2d 357; 111 Am. St ... Rep. 939; Walcott v. Wells, 21 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Bluford v. Canada
... ... ex rel. Nick v. Edwards, 260 S.W. 454; State ex rel ... Hamilton v. Brown, 172 Mo. 374, 72 S.W. 640; State ... ex rel. Blue v. Waldo, 222 Mo.App. 396, 5 S.W.2d 653; ... State ex rel. Hemmerla v. Newburg Special Road ... Dist., 217 S.W. 605; State ex rel. Laclede Gas ... ...