State ex rel. Churchill v. Hay
Decision Date | 18 June 1895 |
Citation | 45 Neb. 321,63 N.W. 821 |
Parties | STATE EX REL. CHURCHILL, ATTY. GEN., v. HAY ET AL. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A subsequent statute treating of a subject in general terms, and not expressly contradicting the more positive provisions of a prior special act, will not be construed as a repeal by implication of the latter, if any other reasonable construction can be adopted.
2. The provision of section 7, art. 7, c. 83, Comp. St., for the hearing by the board of public lands and buildings of charges against certain officers, is cumulative only, and was not intended as a repeal of the prior provision for the removal by the governor for cause of the superintendent of the hospital for the insane at Lincoln (Comp. St. c. 40, § 11).
3. The power conferred upon the governor to remove certain public officers for cause is an administrative, and not a judicial, function, and orders made in the exercise of that power are not reviewable by the courts.
4. The limit of judicial interference in such case is to protect public officers, removable for cause only, in their right to a hearing upon specific charges.
5. Certain findings examined, and held to sustain the order based thereon removing the respondent from the office of superintendent of the hospital for the insane at Lincoln.
Original proceeding in quo warranto on the relation of the attorney general against John T. Hay and others to determine the right to the office of superintendent of the hospital for the insane. Judgment of ouster.A. S. Churchill, Atty. Gen., in pro. per.
Webster, Rose & Fisherdick, for respondent.
Hay. C. Hollenbeck, J. W. C. Abbott, and M. B. Reese, for respondent Abbott.
This is an original proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto on the relation of the attorney general under the provisions of section 714 of the Civil Code, for the purpose of determining which of the respondents is entitled to the office of superintendent of the hospital for the insane at Lincoln. The questions we are called upon to decide are all presented by the pleadings of the respondents, hence further reference to the information will not be required in this opinion.
It appears from the pleadings that the respondent Hay, hereinafter referred to as Dr. Hay, was by Hon. Lorenzo Crounse, governor, appointed to the office in dispute, his appointment taking effect April 1, 1893. The authority for such appointment is found in section 10, c. 40, Comp. St., as follows: “The governor of the state, shall appoint a superintendent and may appoint two assistant physicians for the hospital of the insane, one of whom shall be a woman, who shall hold their offices for a term of six years, unless sooner removed as hereinafter provided.” It is by section 11 of said chapter further provided that, On the 20th day of April, 1895, Hon. Silas A. Holcomb, governor, caused to be served upon the respondent above named the following notice:
On appearing before the governor in response to the foregoing citation, Dr. Hay interposed certain objections to the proceeding, which will be hereafter noticed, and which having been overruled, a hearing was had, resulting in the following finding and order:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fugate v. Weston
...57 S.E. 185, 11 Ann.Cas. 613; Gibbs Board of Aldermen, 99 Ky. 490, 36 S.W. 524; Cameron Parker, 2 Okla. 277, 38 Pac. 14; Churchill Hay, 45 Neb. 321, 63 N.W. 821; State ex rel. Vogt Donahey, 108 Ohio St. 440, 140 N.E. Among the cases cited and relied upon for respondent is Board of Police Co......
-
Fugate v. Weston
...E. 185, 11 Ann. Cas. 613; Gibbs v. Board of Aldermen, 99 Ky. 490, 36 S. W. 524; Cameron v. Parker, 2 Okl. 277, 38 P. 14; Churchill v. Hay, 45 Neb. 321, 63 N. W. 821; State ex rel. Vogt v. Donahey, 108 Ohio St. 440, 140 N. E. 609. Among the cases cited and relied upon for respondent is Board......
-
Holmes v. Osborn
... ... SIDNEY P. OSBORN, as Governor of the State of Arizona, Respondent Civil No. 4403 Supreme Court of Arizona July 16, 1941 ... [115 P.2d ... question collaterally or directly.' ... "In ... a note to State ex rel. Kinsella v ... Eberhart, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) 788, it is said: ... "'But ... it seems ... ...
- State ex rel. Churchill v. Hay