State ex rel. Hixon v. Schofield
Decision Date | 31 March 1867 |
Citation | 41 Mo. 39 |
Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. WILLIAM HIXON, Relator, v. JESSE SCHOFIELD, N. W. LETTON, and WILLIAM S. THOMAS, Justices of Lafayette County Court, Defendants. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Petition for mandamus to Lafayette County Court.
Knox & Smith, for relator.
Glover & Shepley, for defendants.
The relator asks for a mandamus from this court against the justices of the County Court of Lafayette county to compel them to grant him an appeal. It appears from the record that the relator was clerk of the County Court in the county of Lafayette, and that charges of misconduct and misdemeanor in office were filed against him; whereupon the County Court suspended him from office, and appointed another person to temporarily discharge the duties of the office till a trial could be had on the charges according to the provisions of the statute. From this order of suspension the relator made an application for an appeal, which the court refused to grant.
By law, when a court, or a majority of the judges thereof in vacation, shall believe of their own knowledge, or from the information of others on oath or affirmation, that the clerk of such court has been guilty of misdemeanor in office, it is made the duty of the court, or the majority of the judges, to give notice to the Attorney-General, stating the charges, and requiring him to prosecute the same; and they are at liberty to suspend such clerk from office till a trial can be had. The law then indicates the method and manner in which the prosecution shall be carried on by the Attorney-General, and the tribunal in which the matter shall be pursued. This is a special proceeding, applicable to a particular case or state of facts, and must be pursued according to the provisions of the statute. There is nothing in the law by which the party accused can avoid the statutory process, and resort to another remedy and a different jurisdiction.
It is claimed that the appeal is authorized under a recent act passed by the Legislature entitled “An act to provide for appeals in contested election cases,” approved February 1st, 1867. That act provides that appeals may be taken upon such terms and conditions, so far as the same may be applicable, in the same manner as appeals from justices of the peace; but this is not a case of contested election, and the law therefore can have no application. The eighth section, which undertakes to give the right of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGrew v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
... ... time and in any court, may object that plaintiff's petition does not state a cause of action, because the statute upon which it is founded is ... 281; Wells v. Mutual Benefit, 126 Mo. 630, 29 S. W. 607; State ex rel. v. Smith, 141 Mo. 1, 41 S. W. 906; State ex rel. v. Smith, 177 Mo. 69, ... ...
-
State v. Bixman
...to the legislative intent." City of Kansas City v. Payne, supra; State v. County Court of Jackson Co., 102 Mo. 531, 15 S. W. 79; State v. Schofield, 41 Mo. 39; State v. County Court of Marion Co., 128 Mo. 427, 30 S. W. 103, 31 S. W. 23; Witzmann v. Railway Co., 131 Mo. 612, 33 S. W. 181; St......
-
Hammett v. Kansas City
...207 Mo. 26, 105 S.W. 733; State ex rel. Steele v. Baker, 129 Mo. 482, 39 S.W. 924; Kansas City v. Payne, 71 Mo. 159; State ex rel. Hixon v. Schofield, 41 Mo. 39. (4) Ordinance No. 6977 is not prohibited by Section 8395, R.S. 1939, relating to "Regulations and License Fees" of motor vehicles......
-
State ex rel. Priddy v. Gibson
... ... 1369, 1377, 1381, 1385, ... 1386, 1413; High, Extraordinary Remedies, secs. 188, 190, ... 206, 211; State ex rel. v. Schofield, 41 Mo. 39; ... State ex rel. v. Buhler, 90 Mo. 560; State ex ... rel. v. Field, 107 Mo. 445; State ex rel. v ... Slick, 86 Ind. 501; ... ...