State ex rel. Froehlich v. Ries

• Decision Date: 11 June 1926
• Docket Number: No. 25682.,25682.
• Citation: 209 N.W. 327,168 Minn. 11
• Parties: STATE ex rel. FROEHLICH v. RIES, County Auditor, et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

168 Minn. 11

209 N.W. 327

STATE ex rel. FROEHLICH

v.RIES, County Auditor, et al.

No. 25682.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 11, 1926.

Proceeding by the State, on the relation of Paul A. Froehlich to require George J. Ries, as Auditor of Ramsey County, and others, to show cause why an order should not issue directing the named defendant not to certify the names of Michael J. Galvin and others, as candidates for the office of Court Commissioner of Ramsey County, to be placed on the official ballot to be used in the primary election June 21, 1926. Order to show cause discharged, and proceedings dismissed.

Syllabus by the Court

To be eligible to the office of court commissioner a person need not be an attorney at law. That part of section 247, G. S. 1923, requiring court commissioners to be learned in the law, is unconstitutional. Frank J. Danz, of St. Paul, for petitioner.

John H. Horeish, of St. Paul, for respondents.

WILSON, C. J.

The petitioner, Paul A. Froehlich, an attorney at law and qualified elector in Ramsey county, Minn., is a candidate for the office of court commissioner in said county. Respondent George J. Ries is county auditor of said county. Respondents Michael J. Galvin, Henry Gallick, and Leo P. Doyle, who are electors in said county, but not attorneys at law, are also candidates for the office of court commissioner.

Pursuant to section 316, G. S. 1923, the petitioner herein procured an order directed to the respondents, requiring them to show cause why an order should not issue out of this court directing the county auditor not to certify the names of Galvin, Gallick, and Doyle, as candidates for said office, to be placed on the official ballot to be used in the primary election on June 21, 1926. Each of the respondents filed a return.

The only question presented is whether a person not an attorney at law can hold the office of court commissioner in this state.

G. S. 1923, § 247, says: ‘Court commissioners shall be men learned in the law.’ Article 6, § 6, of the state Constitution, specifies that judges of the Supreme and district courts shall be men ‘learned in the law.’ This language is construed as meaning attorneys at law. State ex rel. Jack v. Schmahl, 125 Minn. 533, 147 N. W. 425.

Article 7, § 7, of the state Constitution, says:

‘Every person who by the provisions of this article shall be entitled to vote at any election shall be eligible to any office which now is, or hereafter shall be, elective by the people in the district wherein he shall have resided thirty days previous to such election, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, or the Constitution and laws of the United States.’

The qualifications...