State v. Burke
Decision Date | 21 December 1911 |
Citation | 175 Ala. 561,57 So. 870 |
Parties | STATE EX REL. VANDIVER v. BURKE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1912.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; D. W. Speake, Judge.
Information by the State, in the nature of quo warranto, on relation of W. T. Vandiver, directed against R. L. Burke. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the information, relator appeals. Affirmed.
J. B Brown, for appellant.
George H. Parker and Eyster & Eyster, for appellee.
This is a statutory information, in the nature of quo warranto brought in the name of the state, on the relation of W. T Vandiver, against R.I. Burke, to inquire into the right and title by which the latter holds or exercises the office and functions of judge of the county court of Cullman. The proceeding is expressly authorized by chapter 128, § 5453 et seq., of the Code of 1907.
The material allegation, together with the prayer of the information, is as follows:
The respondent first appeared specially, and moved the court to quash the information and proceedings, on the grounds that they were not instituted by the Attorney General, but on the relation of one W. T. Vandiver, who was without authority to institute the same, which motion was heard, and overruled, by the judge to whom it was addressed. Respondent also demurred to the information, assigning the same grounds set forth in his motion to quash, and additional grounds, among which were the following:
The judge to whom the information was addressed sustained the respondent's demurrer, and the relator declined to plead further, and suffered final judgment; and from such judgment the relator prosecutes this appeal.
The proceeding in question, in the name of the relator, is expressly authorized by the statutes and Code procedure to which we have above referred; and the appeal to this court is likewise authorized by sections 5470 et seq. of the Code. It is distinguishable from that of mandamus to a judge to control his judicial action, which was considered and decided in the cases of State ex rel. Almon v. Burke, 160 Ala. 163, 48 So. 1035, and In re Stephenson, 113 Ala. 85, 21 So. 210. In this case the proceeding is in the nature of quo warranto, and is by statute explicitly authorized to be instituted, in the name of the state, on the relation of "any person giving security for costs," whereas there is no such authorization as to mandamus proceedings against a judge. So the important and material question presented by the information and the demurrer thereto was, Can the respondent, who is probate judge of Cullman county, and is "not learned in the law," constitutionally exercise or discharge the judicial functions imposed, or attempted to be imposed, by statute, upon probate judges, as to the county court of Cullman?
It is contended by the relator that the county court of Cullman is "a court of record" within the meaning of section 154 of the Constitution, and that respondent cannot therefore constitutionally exercise, perform, or discharge the duties of such office. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent probate judge is set forth in his special grounds of demurrer. Section 154 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 reads as follows: "Chancellors and judges of all courts of record, shall have been citizens of the United States and of this state for five years next preceding their election or appointment, and shall be not less than twenty-five years of age, and, except judges of probate courts, shall be learned in the law." The corresponding section of the Constitution of 1875 reads as follows: Under this constitutional provision as it was written in the Constitution of 1875, it was certain--beyond doubt--that it was not a constitutional requisite that the judge of a county court or the person exercising the powers and discharging the functions conferred upon such courts, whether a probate judge or not, should be learned in the law. Did the Constitution of 1901 work such a change as to require the officer or person discharging such functions to be "learned in the law," if such county court be, or is made, a "court of record," and the officer or person discharging such functions be the probate judge of such county? This is the serious, the important, question propounded to the circuit judge below, and to us by this appeal.
Section 139 of the Constitution which names or prescribes the tribunals in which the judicial power of the state shall be vested names the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment, the Supreme Court, and circuit, chancery, probate, and such inferior courts as the Legislature may establish; and concludes by adding the phrase, " and such persons as may be by law invested with powers of a judicial nature," with certain conditions as to the establishment of such inferior courts, not here important to be discussed. The quoted and italicized provision of section 139 of the Constitution first appeared in the Constitution of 1875. Since the Constitution of 1875, the Legislature has had this express authority for conferring certain parts of the judicial power of the state--theretofore conferred or conferable only upon the tribunals or courts mentioned or provided for in the previous Constitutions of 1819, 1861, and 1865--upon certain designated persons. This change of the Constitution was no doubt suggested, and rendered proper and appropriate, if not necessary, by the first penal Code of the state, which was adopted by the Legislature in the year 1866. As is well known, this Code provided for a new system of criminal procedure in this state. Such was the undoubted purpose of the act providing for the codification, and also of the act subsequently adopting the Penal Code. See Penal Code 1866.
In the case of Balkum v. State, 40 Ala. 671, 675, this court spoke as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collins v. State
... ... thereof, "powers of a judicial nature." Gaines ... v. State, 215 Ala. 361, 110 So. 601; Ex parte Pruitt, ... 207 Ala. 261, 92 So. 426; State ex rel. Winter v ... Sayre, 118 Ala. 1, 24 So. 89; State Tax. Com. v ... Bailey et al., 179 Ala. 620, 60 So. 913; State ex ... rel. Vandiver v. Burke, 175 Ala. 561, 567, 57 So. 870 ... And in ... the exercise of this right the Legislature, as affecting ... Madison county, vested the "power of a judicial ... nature" to issue warrants in misdemeanors, etc., in the ... clerk of the circuit court. Since that act (Local Acts 1919, ... ...
-
State Ex Rel.Burg v. City of Albuquerque
...below or that of the appellate court is involved, in which case it may be raised at any time or on the court's own motion. State v. Burke, 175 Ala. 561, 57 So. 870. [16][17] Only persons claiming to be adversely affected are authorized to question the constitutionality of an act (Asplund v.......
-
State v. West
...from other jurisdictions cited in support of the state's contention fall short of determining the point under discussion. In State ex rel. v. Burke, 175 Ala. 561, 57 South. 870, the appeal was from a judgment in quo warranto. The administration of criminal law is not involved. It is said: “......
-
State v. West
... ... There ... is a lack of harmony in the decisions, but many of the cases ... from other jurisdictions cited in support of the State's ... contention fall short of determining the point under ... discussion ... In ... State ex rel. Vandiver v. Burke, 175 Ala. 561, 57 ... So. 870, the appeal was from a judgment in quo warranto. The ... administration of criminal law is not involved. It is said: ... "This ... court will never, on appeal, investigate or inquire into the ... constitutionality of statutes in civil cases ... ...