State v. Slover

Citation113 Mo. 202,20 S.W. 788
Decision Date28 November 1892
Docket NumberNo. 6,107.,6,107.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. TILLEY v. SLOVER, Judge.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Const. 1875, art. 2, § 18, declares that "no person elected or appointed to any office or employment of trust or profit under the law shall hold such office without personally devoting his time to the performance of the duties to the same belonging." Rev. St. 1889, c. 153, art. 2, provides that an official stenographer "may appoint one or more deputies to assist him in the discharge of his duties," and the law also authorizes the judge who appoints an official stenographer to remove him "for incompetency or any misconduct in office." Held, that the failure of an official stenographer to devote his personal attention to the duties of his office, leaving them to be performed wholly by his deputies, was cause for his removal from office by the judge.

Original proceeding by certiorari, brought by the state on the relation of Thomas J. Tilley against James H. Slover, judge of the circuit court of Jackson county, to review the action of the respondent in removing the relator from the office of court stenographer. Affirmed.

Huston & Parrish, Pratt, Ferry & Hagerman, and Edwards & Davison, for relator. Karnes, Holmes & Krauthoff, for respondent.

BRACE, J.

This is an original proceeding by certiorari to review the action of the respondent, as judge of division No. 2 of the circuit court of Jackson county, in removing the relator from the office of stenographer of that division of said court in May, 1891, to which office he had theretofore been regularly appointed. At the time the relator was removed he was assuming the right to exercise the functions of said office by deputy, he being absent in the circuit court of Buchanan county in the discharge of his duties there, as stenographer of that court, to which office he had also theretofore been duly appointed.

1. Jackson is a county having more than 100,000 and less than 350,000 inhabitants. In such counties the law provides that the judge of each division of the circuit court shall appoint an official stenographer, who shall be a sworn officer of the court, and shall hold his office during the term of the judge appointing him; "provided, however, that the judge shall, at any time, have power to remove such stenographer, upon proper charges entered of record, for incompetency, or any misconduct in office, specifying such misconduct, and giving such stenographer an opportunity of being heard." That "it shall be the duty of such stenographer to attend the sessions of the court, and under the direction of the judge to take full stenographic notes of the oral evidence," etc. And further provides that "such official stenographer shall receive as per diem compensation the sum of ten dollars for each and every day in attendance upon the court for which he is appointed," and "may appoint one or more deputies to assist him in the discharge of his duties, but shall not be allowed any additional compensation on account of such deputies." Rev. St. 1889, c. 153, art. 2. The constitution of 1875 provides "that no person elected or appointed to any office or employment of trust or profit under the law of this state * * * shall hold such office without personally devoting his time to the performance of the duties to the same belonging." Article 2, § 18. We have been favored with the citation of numerous authorities, and elaborate and learned arguments pro and con upon several propositions, which we do not think it either necessary or profitable to determine in this case. In the light of the foregoing provision in the fundamental law of the state it is immaterial whether the duties of stenographer of the circuit court of Buchanan county are so incompatible with those of stenographer of division No. 2 of the circuit court of Jackson county as that the acceptance of the former position by the relator would at common law have been held to have been such an abandonment of the latter as that the same became ipso facto vacant or not. The grave abuses that could and did creep into the public service under that law, by which the honors and emoluments of an office could be accepted by one person and the performance of its duties "farmed out" to another, for convenience or profit, furnished a cogent and sufficient reason for this constitutional enactment. The wholesome doctrine that "public office is a public trust" was fortified by its provision declaring it also a personal trust, and that no person should thereafter hold office in this state who did not personally devote his time to the performance of his official duties. That he may have deputies, who, under his supervision and control, may assist him in the performance of his official functions, does not dispense with nor in any way lessen his obligation to personally devote his time to their performance. That this wise and salutary provision of the constitution may be enforced through the provisions of the statute under consideration, as to this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • State v. Fort
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 12, 1908
    ......City of St. Louis v. Alexander, 23 Mo. 483; Deters v. Renick, 37 Mo. 598; Vastine v. McDonald, 38 Mo. 529; State ex rel. v. Macon County, 41 Mo. 453; State ex rel. v. Severance, 55 Mo. 378; Sedgwick on Stat. & Const. Law (2d Ed.) 97, 107." State ex rel. v. Slover, 113 Mo. 202, 20 S. W. 788; State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383, 24 S. W. 457, 41 Am. St. Rep. 663. So that, as Judge Wallace had not exercised the privilege, which he alone possessed, of calling in the judge of division No. 7 of the circuit court to assist him in the disposition of his docket, ......
  • State v. Shelton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 5, 1900
    ......Stephens, 146 Mo. 662, 48 S. W. 929; State v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287, 45 S. W. 245, 40 L. R. A. 280; State v. Harrison, 141 Mo. 12, 41 S. W. 971, 43 S. W. 867; State v. Madison County Court, 136 Mo. 323, 37 S. W. 1126; State v. Dobson, 135 Mo. 1, 36 S. W. 238; State v. Slover, 113 Mo. 202, 20 S. W. 788; Railway Co. v. Young, 96 Mo. 39, 8 S. W. 776; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 64 Mo. 294; Snoddy v. Pettis Co., 45 Mo. 361; Rector v. Price, 1 Mo. 141), yet in this state the law is also well settled that it cannot be used as a substitute for ......
  • People v. Shawver
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 8, 1924
    ...... [222 P. 12] . . . ORIGINAL proceedings in the nature of quo warranto by the. People of the State of Wyoming upon the relation of Frank C. Emerson, against Casper D. Shawver to determine the right and. title to the office of State Engineer. ...150; Moulton v. Scully, 111 Me. 428, 89 A. 944; Jones v. State, . 104 Ark. 261, 149 S.W. 56; Ann. Cas. 1914C 302; State v. Slover, 113 Mo. 202, 20 S.W. 788; State ex rel v. Hawkins, 44 Ohio St. 98; 5 N.E. 228; State v. McGarry, 21 Wis. 496. And "cause" prescribed. as ......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Wymore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 28, 1938
    ......Faulhaber, 94 Mo. 430, 6 S.W. 372; Mechem on Public Officers, sec. 478; State v. Collier, 72 Mo. 13; State ex rel. v. Foster, 32 Kan. 42; State ex rel. Young, Attorney General, v. Robinson, 101 Minn. 277; State ex rel. Heimburger v. Wells, 210 Mo. 601, 109 S.W. 758; State ex rel. v. Slover, 113 Mo. 202, 20 S.W. 788; State ex inf. Norman v. Ellis, 325 Mo. 154, 28 S.W. (2d) 363; State ex rel. Henson v. Sheppard, 192 Mo. 497, 91 S.W. 477; State ex rel. v. Jones, 108 S.W. (2d) 901. This court has taken jurisdiction in quo warranto proceedings against various officials. State ex inf. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT