State v. Munn

• Decision Date: 22 February 1907
• Citation: 201 Mo. 214,99 S.W. 1073
• Parties: STATE ex inf. HADLEY, Attorney General, v. MUNN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

99 S.W. 1073

201 Mo. 214

STATE ex inf. HADLEY, Attorney General, v. MUNN.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 22, 1907.

TOWNS—TOWNSHIP ORGANIZATION—ELECTION —CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS—MAJORITY REQUIRED.

1 Rev. St. 1879, § 7432, providing for the adoption of township organization by the vote of a majority of those voting at the election on the question of such adoption is in conflict with Const. art. 9, § 8 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 261], requiring a majority of the legal voters of the county voting at any general election.

In Banc. Quo warranto proceedings by the state, on the information of the Attorney General, against David Munn. Writ of ouster directed.

The Attorney General, N. T. Gentry, and A. F. Harvey, for informant. T. A. Cummins and Shinabarger & Blagg, for respondent.

GANTT, C. J.

This is an original proceeding in this court in the nature of quo warranto, on the information of the Attorney General, against David Munn, to require the latter to show why he should not be ousted from the office of township collector of Polk township, in Nodaway county. The information charges that the respondent, Munn, unlawfully and willfully usurped, intruded into, and exercised the functions of township collector in Polk township, in Nodaway county, on the pretext and claim that township organization had been legally adopted in said county; whereas, in truth and in fact, township organization had not, and never has been, legally adopted in said county, and that since the 5th day of April, 1905, the respondent has been exercising the duties, functions, and prerogatives of a township collector in counties in this state that have legally adopted township organization under the laws of this state, and has been unlawfully collecting and receiving the fees, emoluments, and profits, to the great injury and detriment of the state of Missouri. The respondent waived the issuance and service of the writ and filed his return, in which he alleges that at the general election in 1880 the proposition as to whether township organization should be adopted for the government of Nodaway county was duly submitted to the qualified voters of said county upon a petition of more than 100 legal voters thereof, and that at said election a majority of all the votes cast at said election were cast in favor of township organization, and that ever since the last Tuesday in March, 1881, the said county had been acting under township organization, and that at the township...