State v. Corcoran

• Decision Date: 02 July 1907
• Citation: 103 S.W. 1044,206 Mo. 1
• Parties: STATE ex inf. HADLEY, Atty. Gen., v. CORCORAN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

103 S.W. 1044

206 Mo. 1

STATE ex inf. HADLEY, Atty. Gen., v. CORCORAN.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July 2, 1907.

1. JURY—COMMISSIONERS—APPOINTMENT— TERMS OF OFFICE.

Under Sess. Acts 1879, p. 28, embodied in Rev. St. 1899, §§ 6539, 6541 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 3272], providing for the appointment of a jury commissioner in cities having a certain population, and declaring that the appointee shall hold office for four years after the 1st day of May in the year of his appointment, and in case of any vacancy during the term the same shall be filled by appointment "in like manner as hereinbefore provided," when considered in connection with Act March 3, 1857 (Laws 1856-57, p. 661), as amended by Act Nov. 14, 1857 (Laws 1857, p. 486), relating to jury commissioners and the general course of legislation on the subject of appointments to fill vacancies in offices, an appointee to fill a vacancy in the office of jury commissioner caused by the death of the incumbent holds office for four years from May 1st of the year of his appointment, though the appointment purports to be for a less term.

2. SAME—CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.

The office of jury commissioner, created by Sess. Acts 1879, p. 28, embodied in Rev. St. 1899, §§ 6539, 6541 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 3272], relating to the appointment of jury commissioner in cities having a specified population, is not an office within Const. art. 9, § 14, limiting the term of office of county, township and municipal officers to four years.

In Banc. Information in the nature of quo warranto by the state, on the information of Herbert S. Hadley, Attorney General, against James W. Corcoran, to oust respondent from the office of jury commissioner of the city of St. Louis. Dismissed.

This is a proceeding by information in the nature of quo warranto, filed by the Attorney General to test the right of respondent to the office of jury commissioner of the city of St. Louis. There is no dispute as to the facts in this controversy, hence there is no necessity for setting out in detail the agreed statement of facts disclosed by the record. The respondent in this case very clearly states the facts applicable to the question involved in this controversy. On April 2, 1903, the expiration of the term of the then jury commissioner of the city of St. Louis occurring on May 1, 1903, the judges of the said city duly appointed John G. Prather to said office. Col. Prather duly qualified and entered upon the performance of the duties of the office on May 1, 1903, and continued to perform the same until December 27, 1903, at which time he died. Because of the vacancy thereby created the respondent herein was, on January 5, 1904, appointed as such jury commissioner in accordance with the provisions of sections 6539 and 6541, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 3272]. The appointment was made in writing as required by statute, and in said writing it was stated that the respondent was "to hold and to exercise the duties of said office for the remainder of the term of the said John G. Prather, deceased, late jury commissioner, which said term was for a period of four years from and after the 1st day of May, 1903." The respondent duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties under such appointment, and continued to discharge the same. On April 26, 1907, the said judges undertook to appoint one George B. Teasdale as jury commissioner in place of the respondent for a term beginning May 1, 1907. Acting under such appointment, the said Teasdale took the oath of office as prescribed by law, and did, on May 1, 1907, endeavor to take possession of said office of jury commissioner and the books, papers, and paraphernalia pertaining thereto, but the respondent refused to allow the said Teasdale to take possession thereof, and has himself remained in possession, and claims the right to continue therein and to exercise the duties thereof. The act of April 11, 1879 (Sess. Acts 1879, p. 28), provides (Rev. St. Mo. 1899, §§ 6539, 6541):

"In every city in the state of Missouri, having over one hundred thousand inhabitants, it shall be the duty of the judge or judges of the court or courts having general jurisdiction of civil causes within such city, together with the judge or judges of the court having jurisdiction within such city in cases of felony, or a majority of all such judges, to appoint, within thirty days after the passage of this act, and at such other times as hereinafter authorized, a suitable person, who shall for at least five years next preceding his appointment, have been a resident of such city, to be jury commissioner for said city."

"Such appointment shall be made in writing and signed by the judges making the same. * * * The person so appointed shall hold office for the term of four years from and after the first day of May in the year of his appointment, unless he shall sooner cease to reside in such city, or become otherwise disqualified or be removed from office. * * * In case of any vacancy occurring in said office of jury commissioner during the term for which any person was appointed thereto, or by expiration of such term, it shall be the duty of the judges, for the time being, of the courts mentioned in the first section of this act, or a majority of them, without delay, to fill such vacancy by appointment of some person possessing the proper qualification hereunder, in like manner as hereinafter provided."

This sufficiently indicates the nature and character of this controversy, as well as the legal questions involved. It is manifest that there is but one proposition confronting us for consideration. That is whether or not under the act of April 11, 1879 (Laws 1879, p. 28), which is now article 23, c. 91, Rev. St. 1899, the appointment of respondent was for a full term, or simply for the unexpired portion of a term.

Herbert S. Hadley, Atty. Gen., and Nagel & Kirby, for informant. Walter B. Douglas and H. Chouteau Dyer, for respondent.

FOX, J. (after stating the facts).

It is manifest from the disclosures of the record herein indicated that this controversy sharply presents the question as to the length of the term of the office of jury commissioner in the city of St. Louis, as well as the length of time for which an appointment might be made in filling a vacancy in such office under the provisions of the statute. The solution of the proposition submitted to our consideration must be sought by a fair and reasonable interpretation of the provisions of the statute applicable to that subject. It is therefore important that we keep in mind the provisions of the statute pertinent to the main subject—that of jury commissioner in cities possessing the required number of inhabitants. Therefore we will be pardoned for reproducing in their entirety the two sections treating of that subject. We quote the sections as embraced in the revision of 1899, which is simply a reproduction of the act approved April 11, 1879. Section 6539, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 3272], provides: "In every city in the state of Missouri having over one hundred thousand inhabitants, it shall be the duty of the judge or judges of the court or courts having general jurisdiction of civil causes within such city, together with the judge or judges of the court having jurisdiction with such city in cases of felony, or a majority of all such judges, to appoint within thirty days after the passage of this article, and at such other times as hereinafter authorized, a suitable person who shall, for at least five years next preceding his appointment, have been a resident of such city, to be jury commissioner for said city." Section 6541 provides that: "Such appointment shall be made in writing, and signed by the judge making the same. A copy thereof shall be forthwith entered of record in each of the courts mentioned in section 6539 of this article, and a certificate of such record appended to said original by the clerk, and under the seal of each of said courts; and thereupon the said original shall be delivered by the clerk last certifying such record thereof, to the register of said city, by whom the said original shall be filed and preserved in his office, as other official papers in his custody. The person so appointed shall hold said office for the term of four years from and after the first of May in the year of his appointment, unless he shall sooner cease to reside in such city, or become otherwise disqualified or be removed from office. A majority of the judges, for the time being, of the courts mentioned in section 6539 of this article, shall have power, at any time, to remove such jury commissioner from his said office for any cause by them deemed sufficient, by a writing under their hands, declaring the fact of such removal. Provided, that a copy of such writing shall be forthwith entered of record in each of said courts, by order thereof, respectively, and the original thereof being certified as above provided, in respect to the original appointment, shall, in like manner, be filed with and preserved by the register of such city; and from the time of such filing thereof it shall be unlawful for the person so removed to exercise any duty or function of said office. In case of any vacancy occurring in said office of jury commissioner, during the term for which any person was appointed thereto, or by expiration of such term, it shall be the duty of the judges for the time being of the courts mentioned in section 6539 of this article, or a majority of them, without delay, to fill such vacancy by appointment of some person possessing the proper qualifications hereunder, in like manner as hereinbefore provided."

In their commendable efforts in aid of this court to correctly as well as promptly determine the propositions confronting us, counsel for relator and respondent have favored us with a very strong and able presentation of their views upon the subject in controversy. In fact, the briefs of counsel have...