State ex rel. Langston v. Huston

• Decision Date: 14 August 1931
• Docket Number: No. 5043.,5043.
• Citation: 41 S.W.2d 194
• Parties: STATE ex rel. LANGSTON v. HUSTON et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

41 S.W.2d 194

STATE ex rel. LANGSTON v. HUSTON et al.

No. 5043.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

August 14, 1931.

"Not to be officially published."

Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of William Langston, for an alternative writ of mandamus to L. A. Huston and others, Judges of the County Court of Howell County.

Petition dismissed without prejudice.

J. N. Burroughs and J. L. Bess, both of West Plains, for relator.

Floyd Bean and H. D. Green, both of West Plains, for respondents.

SMITH, J.

In this case the relator filed his petition for an alternative writ of mandamus, directed to the judges of the county court of Howell county, requiring them to issue, or show causes why they should not issue to the relator, a warrant for $3,500 for his salary as highway engineer of Howell county for the years 1928, 1929, 1930, and the first half of 1931, at the rate of $1,000 per year. The relator in his petition states that he was at all the times mentioned in his petition the duly qualified and acting surveyor of Howell county, and that on the 4th day of January, 1927, the county court of Howell county appointed the relator as highway engineer of Howell county, and fixed his salary at $1,000 per year, payable monthly; that the orders of said county court and records pertaining to the appointment of the relator are found in the records of the county court of that county, and which records were copied in relator's petition. The relator alleged that he was appointed under the provisions of the statutes of Missouri pertaining to the appointment of a highway engineer, and the fixing of his salary by the county court, which provisions of the statute are sections 8006 to 8019, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1929.

The petition alleged that relator was appointed for a term of one year at a salary of $1,000 per year, and that no proceeding or action of any kind was ever taken by the court to terminate his appointment, and that by virtue of the appointment he has continuously since the 4th day of January, 1927, been and is now the duly and lawfully qualified and acting highway engineer of said county, and has performed the duties of said office for which he is entitled to his salary, and for which he prays a writ of mandamus commanding that the warrant be issued to him. He alleged in his petition that, since his appointment was not terminated by any action of the court, his appointment would hold and continue until his successor is "elected or appointed, commissioned and qualified," as provided by section 11196, Rev. St. Mo. 1929.

Notice was given to the respondents that the petition would be presented to this court, and on the day it was presented the respondents...