State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 23 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 19271. |
| Citation | 237 P. 12,135 Wash. 109 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ROGERS et al. v. JOHNSON, Mayor. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; Teats, Judge.
Mandamus by the State, on the relation of W. W. Rogers and others against J. C. Johnson, as Mayor of the City of Olympia. Judgment for relators, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
George R. Bigelow, of Olympia, for appellant.
Troy & Yantis, of Olympia, for respondents.
The relators, claiming to have been rightfully in possession and exercising the functions of the offices of chief of the fire department, chief of police, superintendent of the city water department, assistant chief of the fire department, and police sergeant, respectively, of the city of Olympia, during the whole of the month of January, 1925 commenced this mandamus proceeding in the superior court for Thurston county, seeking a writ of mandate requiring J. C Johnson, as mayor of the city, to sign warrants for their respective compensations as such officers for that month, which were ordered by the city council to be drawn and issued against the proper fund of the city, and which have been by the city clerk drawn and prepared accordingly for the mayor's signing. A hearing upon the merits in the superior court resulted in the awarding of a judgment and directing the issuance of a writ of mandate as prayed for by the relators, from which this appeal has been taken by Johnson as mayor.
The offices in question are all appointive offices; that is, either by statutory or ordinance provisions they are required to be filled by appointment by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council. The relators were the duly appointed, confirmed, qualified, and acting incumbents of these respective offices under the city administration which terminated on January 6, 1925; the mayor who appointed them then going out of office and being succeeded by appellant as mayor as the result of the city election held in December, 1924. At the regular meeting of the council, held on January 6, 1925, appellant appointed successors to each of the relators in the respective offices and presented the appointments to the council for confirmation. The council deferred action on the question of confirmation until its second regular meeting thereafter, which was on February 3d, when it affirmatively refused to confirm each and all of such appointments. Pending the action of the council on the question of confirmation, and immediately upon the appointments being made by appellant and presented to the city council for confirmation, the appointees demanded of and sought possession of the respective offices from the relators, which demands were all refused, and the relators continued to retain possession and exercise the functions of the respective offices throughout the month of January, claiming it to be their right and duty to so retain possession and exercise the functions of the offices until the appointments of their successors should be confirmed by the council. The services of relators in the offices being so continued throughout the month of January, the council, on February 3d, duly allowed and ordered paid to them, respectively, the fixed salaries attached to the offices for the month of January, and further ordered warrants against the proper fund of the city to be issued accordingly, which warrants were, in pursuance of such direction, prepared by the city clerk and presented to appellant as mayor for his signature, which is required by law in that behalf, if the respective relators were lawful incumbents of the offices during the whole of the month of January. Appellant refused to sign the warrants, claiming that none of the relators was a lawful incumbent of the respective offices during the whole or any part of the month of January, except during the first six days thereof.
The statute law with which we are here concerned is found in chapter 184, Laws of 1915, being the general act relating to the government of cities of the third class, and is embodied in sections 9114 and following, of Remington's Compiled Statutes. Referring to these sections we quote the portions thereof with which we are here concerned, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Warren v. Christian, 2232
... ... [123 P.2d 369] ... ORIGINAL quo warranto proceeding by the people of the state ... of Wyoming on the relation of Fred E. Warren, and others, ... against James W. Christian, and others, to determine title to ... the offices of ... To the ... same effect are 46 C. J. 953 and cases cited; State ex ... rel. Rogers v. Johnson, 135 Wash. 109, 237 P. 12; ... State ex rel. v. Rogers, 93 Mont. 355, 18 P.2d 617; ... State ex rel. v. Stafford, 97 Mont. 275, 34 P.2d ... ...
-
Schweisinger v. Jones
...to leave an interregnum in this important office, which we cannot suppose was designed by the Legislature."] State ex rel. Rogers v. Johnson (1925) 135 Wash. 109, 113, 237 P. 12, 13.) Therefore, by use of the phrase barring service of "more" than three terms, the People expressed the view t......
-
Territory Hawai`i v. Morita
...constitute a similar legislative prohibition by inference or otherwise against extended tenures of appointed officers. (State v. Johnson, 135 Wash. 109, 237 Pac. 12;State v. Daggett, 28 Wash. 1, 68 Pac. 340;People v. Oulton, 28 Cal. 44;Hartford Indemnity Co. v. Tulare, 30 Cal. 2nd 832, 186 ......
-
State ex rel. Olsen v. Swanberg
...and that the rule there laid down should be adhered to. See McCall v. Cull, 51 Ariz. 237, 75 P.2d 696; State ex rel. Rogers v. Johnson, 135 Wash. 109, at page 115, 237 P. 12; People ex rel. Warren v. Christian, 58 Wyo. 39, at pages 51-60, 123 P.2d 368; Alcorn ex rel. Hendrick v. Keating, 12......