State v. Burris
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Writing for the Court | LORE, C. J. |
| Citation | 4 Pen. 3,49 A. 930 |
| Decision Date | 22 July 1901 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. McVEY v. BURRIS, State Treasurer. |
4 Pen. 3
STATE ex rel. McVEY
v.
BURRIS, State Treasurer.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
July 22, 1901.
Mandamus proceedings by the state, on relation of Bernard J. McVey, against Martin B. Burris, state treasurer, heard by the superior court, sitting as a court in banc. Opinion in favor of respondent certified to the superior court.
Argued before LORE, C. J., and SPRUANCE, GRUBB, PENNEWILL, and BOYCE, JJ.
John Biggs, for relator.
Herbert H. Ward, for defendant.
LORE, C. J. This is an application for a writ of peremptory mandamus to compel Martin B. Burris, state treasurer of the state of Delaware, the respondent, to pay to Bernard J. McVey, the relator, the sum of $100; being, as he alleges, the amount due him for salary as state detective for the month ending April 1, 1901. The facts were agreed upon in a case stated, and the question of law raised therein, on joint application of the parties, was ordered by the court to be heard by the court in banc. By the case stated it appears that the relator had been regularly appointed and was in the due exercise of his office as a state detective on the 12th day of March, 1901, by appointment for a term of four years, under the provisions of chapter 64, 21 Laws Del.; that his term of office had not then expired. By act of the general assembly approved March 12, 1901, said chapter 64 was "repealed and made null and void." Thereby the office of state detective was abolished. By act of the general assembly approved March 15, 1901, the office of state detective was re-established, but the relator was not reappointed under the lastnamed
act The relator claims that the repealing act of March 12, 1901, is void, under article 15, § 4, Const 1897, which reads: "No law shall extend the term of any public officer, nor diminish his salary or emoluments after his election or appointment." He bases this contention on two grounds: (1) That the abolishment of his office took away his salary for the residue of his term and thereby diminished his salary; (2) that the abolishment of the office of state detective by act of March 12, 1901, and the re-establishment of the same by act of March 15, 1901, were only an indirect method of diminishing the salary of the relator, and not a bona fide attempt to dispense with the office. We will deal with the latter point first There is no evidence in this case that there was any lack of bona fides on the part of the legislature in passing these acts. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State, Case Number: 1989
...20 Conn. 8; State et al. v. Savings Bank, 64 A. 5; Territory v. O'Connor, 5 Dak. 397, 41 N.W. 746; State ex rel. McVey v. Burris (Del.) 49 A. 930; Evans v. Browne, 30 Ind. 514; State v. Boice, 140 Ind. 506; Lewis v. State, 148 Ind. 346, 47 N.E. 675; Lafferty v. Huffman, 99 Ky. 80, 35 S.W. 1......
-
State ex rel. Craven v. Schorr, No. 524
...authority, the only redress is action at the polls. Our courts have repeatedly said so. See State ex rel. McVey v. Burris, 4 Pennewill 3, 49 A. 930; State v. Grier, 4 Boyce 322, 88 A. 579; Collison v. State, For us to undertake the task of pronouncing a moral judgment upon the motives of me......
-
State v. Rogers
...100, 119 A.L.R. 1422 (Sup.Ct.1938); State v. Grier, 4 Boyce 322, 88 A. 579 (Gen.Sess.1913); and State ex rel. McVey v. Burris, 4 Penn. 3, 49 A. 930, 931 (Sup.Ct.1901). In the last cited case the Court '* * * The legislature of each state represents the sovereignty of the people, and it may ......
-
New Castle County Council v. State, No. 96C-10-045-WTQ
...limitation, such offices may be modified, abridged, or abolished as the legislature may see fit." State ex rel. McVey v. Burris, Del.Supr., 49 A. 930, 931 (1901). Other courts have held that so long as the legislation is aimed at the office and not the officeholder, there is no constitution......