State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 14 June 1893 |
| Citation | 33 P. 974,6 Wash. 496 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. STEARNS v. SMITH. |
Petition by the state on the relation of John W. Stearns, for a writ of mandamus to Andrew H. Smith, as ex-treasurer of the board of regents of the Agricultural College. An alternative writ was granted, and respondent demurred thereto. Demurrer sustained, and writ discharged.
Jas. A. Haight, Asst. Atty. Gen., for relator.
Calkins & Shackleford, for respondent.
Under a showing of an emergency, the relator in this proceeding obtained from this court an alternative writ of mandamus requiring respondent, as ex-treasurer of the board of regents of the Agricultural College, to turn over certain moneys alleged to be in his possession to his successor in office the relator. The respondent has demurred to the alternative writ, on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction of the proceeding, and we find, upon a more careful examination of the constitution of the state, that he is right. Section 4, art. 4, of the constitution confers upon this court original jurisdiction in mandamus as to all "state" officers, and the only question to be determined upon the demurrer is as to whether the respondent is a "state officer," within the meaning of the section mentioned. As a general rule, the term "state officer" is only applied to those superior executive officers who constitute the heads of the executive departments of a state. The constitution does not in terms say who the state officers shall be, but it is noticeable that the third or executive article, which is devoted entirely to these superior officers of the state, closes with section 25, wherein it is first provided that no person, excepting a citizen of the United States and a qualified elector of this state, shall be eligible to hold any state office, and also that the compensation for state officers shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which they have been elected. As used in this connection, the framers of the constitution evidently had in mind only the officers for which article 3 provided. Again, in article 5, "Of Impeachment," the second section provides that the governor and other "state" and judicial officers, except judges and justices of courts not of record, shall be liable to impeachment; and the third section provides that all officers not liable to impeachment shall be subject to removal for malfeasance in office in such manner as may be provided by law. If "state officers" should be taken to include all officers who have to do with the state's business, officers of all grades would be subject to removal by impeachment only, and there would be no use of section 3. But it is a matter of general, as well as legal knowledge, that impeachments do not lie against any but the superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCollum
... ... 1927 617 160 1942 274 ... 1928 504 172 1943 164 ... 1929 472 ... Thompson v. Caton, 3 Wash. Ter. 31, 13 P. 185, ... criticised (overruled) by Benham v. Ham, 5 Wash ... 128, [17 Wn.2d 120] 131, 21 P. 459, 34 Am.St.Rep. 851; ... Smith v. Taylor, 2 Wash. 422, 27 P. 812, criticised ... by O'Connor v. Slatter, 46 Wash. 308, 311, 89 P ... 885, 886, for remarks 'not necessary to a decision in ... that case.' ... Spithill v. Jones, 3 Wash. 290, 28 P. 531, ... criticised in ... ...
-
State ex rel. Milwaukee Med. Coll. v. Chittenden
...Courts elsewhere, in similar circumstances, have said that, as a general rule, it applies only in that sense. State ex rel. Stearns v. Smith, 6 Wash. 496, 33 Pac. 974. Appellants' counsel question the right of respondent to the remedy accorded, insisting that the latter is neither intereste......
-
People v. Shawver
... ... [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 ... 412, 36 P. 281; People ... v. Dolan, 5 Wyo. 253, 39 P. 752; State v ... Krueger, 134 Mo. 362, 35 S.W. 604; State v ... Smith, 6 Wash. 496, 33 P. 974. The provision has been so ... construed by the legislature, Secs. 223, 318 C. S., 6 R. C ... L. 63; State v. Trust Co., ... ...
-
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Grant
...Engineer is the head of his department. He is not such an officer as is contemplated by Section 18. (State v. Hewitt, 3 S.D. 187; State v. Smith, 6 Wash., 496.) The reasons stated writing by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State constitute misconduct in office within the meanin......