State ex rel. Giles v. Hyde
Decision Date | 28 October 1943 |
Docket Number | 6613 |
Citation | 142 P.2d 665,105 Utah 436 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE ex rel. GILES, Attorney General, v. HYDE |
Original proceeding on complaint in quo warranto by State, on relation of Grover A. Giles, Attorney General, against Gordon Taylor Hyde, to test authority of defendant to hold the office of Commissioner of Department of Finance.
Defendant ousted from office.
Zar E Hayes, A. U. Miner, and Herbert F. Smart, Deputy Attys. Gen for plaintiff.
Beverly S. Clendenin, of Salt Lake City, for defendant.
OPINION
This is an original action filed in this court in quo warranto on the relation of the Attorney General of Utah challenging the authority of the defendant to hold the office of Commissioner of the Department of Finance of the State.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that the First Special Session of the 1941 Utah State Legislature enacted a law on March 26, 1941, designated as Senate Bill No. 20, creating and establishing a Department of Finance, providing that the administration of the Department should be under the control of a Commission of Finance, and that:
* * *"(Italics added.) Sec. 82C-2-2, U. C. A. 1943.
And that:
"Vacancies in the office of commissioner of finance occurring by reason of death, resignation or other cause, or by rejection by the senate, shall be filled by the appointment of another person by the governor which appointment shall be submitted by him to the senate for confirmation or rejection in the first session thereof after the appointment, or, if made while the senate is in session, at that session." Sec. 82C-2-3, U. C. A. 1943.
The act provided that it should "take effect on July 1, 1941, at the hour of 12:01 o'clock a. m. or upon the proclamation of the governor prior to that date." The First Special Session of the 1941 Legislature adjourned sine die on March 29, 1941; on April, 1941, the Governor approved the act; and on June 16, 1941, by proclamation, the Governor provided that the act should be in full force and effect from and after the latter date, June 16th.
Under date of March 28, 1941, prior to the adjournment of the First Special Session and prior to the approval of the above act by the Governor, the latter sent to the Senate of that session the following letter:
On the following day, March 29, 1941, the Senate of said Special Session purported to confirm the appointment of defendant in accordance with the terms of the Governor's letter, and on that day the Special Session of the 1941 Legislature adjourned sine die.
In pursuance of the above action, the defendant took oath of office on June 16, 1941, and entered upon the duties of the office of Commissioner of Finance and ever since that date has continued to exercise the powers, functions and prerogatives of the office. No action other than that above set forth has since been taken by the Governor at any time or by the Senate at any regular or special session of the Legislature affecting this purported appointment and confirmation.
We quote from the pleadings. Plaintiff alleges:
The first question to be disposed of is that raised by the demurrer interposed by the defendant on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action by reason of the fact that it "fails to allege the name of the person who claims to be entitled to the office in question and contains no statement as to his right thereto, all as required by Section 104-66-6, Utah Code Annotated, 1943."
There was no person, other than defendant, claiming the right to the office in question. It is true that the section referred to provides that there shall be stated in a complaint in quo warranto "the name of the person who claims to be entitled" to the office, authority to hold which is brought in question. That manifestly applies to a case where there is such a person claiming the right to an office. The provision does not preclude the bringing of an action on the relation of the Attorney General in the interest of the public to test the authority of one holding a public office where there is no other claimant to the office, such as in the instant case.
Sec. 104-66-1, U. C. A. 1943, provides that:
"A civil action may be brought in the name of the state: (1) Against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a public office, civil or military * * *."
And Sec. 104-66-4 provides that:
"The attorney-general may, upon his own relation, bring any such action, * * *."
That the complaint in this action is not vulnerable to a demurrer on the ground contended for by defendant and cannot be seriously questioned. The demurrer is overruled. State ex rel. Giles, Attorney General, v. Burke, 101 Utah 48, 117 P.2d 454; State ex rel. Nagle, Attorney General, v. Kelsey, 102 Mont. 8, 55 P.2d 685; People ex rel. Fleming v. Shorb, 100 Cal. 537, 35 P. 163, 38 Am. St. Rep. 310; State ex rel. Sullivan, Attorney General, v. Moore et al., 49 Ariz. 51, 64 P.2d 809.
The principal which must decide this case was involved practically on all fours in the case of State ex rel Cook v. Meares, 116 N.C. 582, 21 S.E. 973, 975. There the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an act on March 8, 1895, creating a circuit criminal court, but the act was not signed and ratified by the president of the senate and speaker of the house until March 12, 1895. The act provided that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Schara v. Holmes
...of North Carolina held that the election was a nullity because at the time the office of treasurer did not exist. In State ex rel. Giles v. Hyde, 105 Utah 436, 142 P.2d 665, the following facts are found: The first special session of the 1941 Utah legislature enacted on March 26, 1941, a la......
-
Driggs v. Utah Teachers Retirement Board
...... . Original proceeding by Frank M. Driggs against Utah State. Teachers Retirement Board and others for a writ of mandate to. compel ... plaintiff. . . Grover. A. Giles, Atty. Gen., and C. N. Ottosen, Asst. Atty. Gen.,. for defendants. . ..., 230 Iowa 949, 299 N.W. 556, 137 A. L. R. 234; State ex rel. Holton v. City of Tampa ,. 119 Fla. 556, 159 So. 292, 98 A. L. R. 501; ......