State ex rel. Nick v. Edwards
| Citation | 260 S.W. 454 |
| Decision Date | 22 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | 24132 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. NICK v. EDWARDS et al |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
T. J Rowe, Thos. J. Rowe, Jr., and Henry Rowe, all of St. Louis for relator.
George F. Haid, Oliver Senti and Henry Kortjohn, Jr., all of St Louis, for respondents.
In Banc. All concur, except WOODSON, C. J., and GRAVES, J., who dissent, and WHITE, J., not sitting.
This is an original action in mandamus to require the respondents, as election commissioners of the city of St. Louis, to declare that the relator has been elected as one of the justices of the peace for the Fourth district of that city.
The alternative writ by an incorporating reference makes the petition a part of the same, and it is so considered by the respondents.
A motion to quash was filed by the respondents, who upon its being overruled filed their return, and testimony has been taken herein by a commissioner and submitted for our consideration. This procedure, however, should not and will not deter us from further considering whether the facts, as set forth in the writ, authorize the invoking of this drastic remedy which, in no uncertain terms, we have characterized as hard, fast, and unreasoning and to be reserved for extraordinary emergencies. State ex rel. Barker v. K. C. Gas Co., 254 Mo. 515, 163 S.W. 854.
The alternative writ discloses that at the general election held in the city of St. Louis, in November, 1922, the relator and another, there being two to elect, were candidates for justices of the peace in the Fourth district of that city. Two others, who had been named by the opposing political party, were candidates for the same offices. Upon the returns of the election being made to the respondents as election commissioners, they proceeded to count and cast them up in the manner required by section 61, p. 365, Laws 1921, and upon the result having been ascertained, so far as same was applicable to the office of justice of the peace, they certified it to the circuit court as required by section 62 of said act.
This constituted a complete performance of the measure of their duty as required by the statute. This certificate showed that the two rival candidates to the relator and the other had each received more than either of the latter. No charge of misconduct is made against the respondents, nor is it averred that there is a mistake in the result certified by them to the circuit court.
The action of the respondents in the performance of their duties was purely ministerial and was limited to the statute enjoining the same. Under the most liberal classification of the official character of these respondents, they are...
To continue reading
Request your trial