State v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 22 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 353 |
| Citation | 217 Ala. 80,114 So. 905 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. COE v. HARRISON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Quo warranto proceeding by the State of Alabama, on the relation of C.L. Coe, against J.V. Harrison. From a judgment for respondent, relator appeals. Reversed and remanded.
O.S Lewis, of Dothan, for appellant.
Farmer Merrill & Farmer, of Dothan, for appellee.
This proceeding brings into question the right of appellee to hold the office of councilman of the city of Dothan. Appellee was eligible to the office when elected, but since his induction into office he has failed to pay the poll tax due from him to the state, and so, confessedly, at the time of the institution of this proceeding, was not a qualified elector.
The result depends upon the proper interpretation of section 1761 of the Code, reading as follows:
Appellee's view is that the section governs eligibility to office, but not the qualification of the councilman to continue to hold office, once he is elected and inducted into office according to law. We have been unable to accept that view.
The legislative intention is to be gathered from the language of the quoted section and cognate provisions of the Code. The decision in Finklea v. Farish, 160 Ala. 230, 49 So. 366, is referred to, but that we think sheds no decisive light upon the question to be decided. It was there held that the Constitution (section 60), establishing certain qualifications, or disqualifications, for holding offices of trust or profit in this state, leaves the general qualifications, other than those specified in the section, to the determination of the Legislature. More specifically, the decision was that the appellant in that case could not hold the office to which he had been declared elected, for the reason that he was not eligible at the time of the election. This record presents a different question.
It will be observed that the section of the Code now under examination is divided into two sentences, and that the simple purpose and effect of the second, in so far as it adds anything to the first, is to require that the councilman shall, during his term of office, reside within the limits of the ward from which he shall have been elected. That much is clear. But does he vacate his office by failing to pay his poll tax, thereby ceasing to be a qualified elector? The answer is not clear beyond cavil, but is clear enough, in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Olson v. Langer, 6288.
...its functions, he is a usurper, and may be ousted by quo warranto proceedings. Such is the definite decision in State ex rel. Coe v. Harrison, 217 Ala. 80, 114 So. 905. See, also, State ex rel. Williams v. Owens, 217 Ala. 668, 117 So. 298.” To the same effect is Gandy v. State, 10 Neb. 243,......
-
State, Relation of Olson v. Langer
... ... the incumbent becomes ineligible to hold the office pending ... his incumbency, and continues to exercise its functions, he ... is a usurper, [65 N.D. 80] and may be ousted by quo warranto ... proceedings. Such is the definite decision in State ex ... rel. Coe v. Harrison, 217 Ala. 80, 114 So. 905. See also ... State ex rel. Williams v. Owens, 217 Ala. 668, 117 So ... To the ... same effect is Gandy v. State, 10 Neb. 243, 4 N.W ... The ... instant case is not the first in which a controversy has ... arisen between two ... ...
-
Dorf v. Skolnik
...'eligible' in a statute meant a person's capacity to hold office as well as to be elected to office. See also State ex rel. Coe v. Harrison, 217 Ala. 80, 81, 114 So. 905 (1927), and State of Ohio ex rel. v. Orr, 61 Ohio St. 384, 385, 56 N.E. 14 (1899). Also, F. Mechem, The Law of Public Off......
-
Valle v. Pressman
...127 Mo.App. 377, 105 S.W. 1055 (1907); State ex rel. Fugina v. Pierce, 191 Wis. 1, 209 N.W. 693 (1926); and State ex rel. Coe v. Harrison, 217 Ala. 80, 114 So. 905 (1927). In the Coe case, in which a councilman after induction into office failed to pay the state poll tax and therefore cease......