State v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 30 June 1890 |
| Citation | 14 S.W. 108,102 Mo. 85 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. THOMAS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
W. C. Marshall, for relator. Leverett Bell, for respondent.
1. This, an original proceeding by quo warranto, has been instituted in this court to question the validity of the special election held March 4, 1890, at which respondent claims to have been elected marshal of the city of St. Louis, and by virtue of which he has been duly commissioned and qualified, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of that office. The contention of the relator on this point is twofold: First, that ordinance 1089 of the city of St. Louis, under which the special election aforesaid was held, was unauthorized by the provisions of the charter, and therefore void; and because, second, there was no vacancy in the office of city marshal at the time of calling, nor at the time of holding, the special election, and consequently respondent was not elected, even granting the validity of the ordinance already referred to, which provides that "a vacancy occurring in any elective office, more than six months before the expiration of the term thereof, shall be filled by a special election, which shall be immediately ordered by the mayor for the purpose, and five days' public notice of the time and place of holding any special election shall be given." This ordinance, it seems, was passed in 1876, the year of the adoption of the charter. Relator contends that there is only one provision in the charter of the city in relation to filling elective offices at times other than regular elections, and that is article 4, § 13 thereof, providing that, "in case any elective office shall become vacant within six months from the expiration of the time for which its incumbent shall have been elected, then the council shall by election fill the vacancy for the unexpired term," etc.; and consequently he claims that the ordinance heretofore copied is not only unauthorized, but an attempt thereby to supply a casus omissus in the charter, which, under the provisions of section 19, art. 16, of that instrument, can only be supplied by an amendment thereof. This contention, however, cannot stand, in the face of the twenty-sixth section of article 3 of the charter, and the eighth clause thereof, providing that "the mayor and assembly shall have power within the city, by ordinance not inconsistent with the constitution or any law of this state, or of this charter, * * * to regulate and provide for the election or appointment of city officers required by this charter or authorized by ordinance, and provide for their suspension or removal," etc. The object of this charter provision is quite plain. It bestows, as its language imports, sufficient power upon the law-making authorities of the city to make all necessary rules or laws in regard to municipal elections, whether those elections be general or special; whether occurring before the expiration of any official term of office, and therefore anticipatory in their nature, or when occurring after some regular election has failed of its purpose by reason of one or more of the various vicissitudes incident...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. National Subway Company v. St. Louis
... ... manner and form as done in the ordinances under ... consideration. The power of the city in this regard is ... plenary , and can not be gainsaid unless their ... customary meaning and effect be denied to plain words. See, ... also, State ex rel. v. Thomas , 102 Mo. 85, ... 14 S.W. 108; State ex rel. v. Schweickardt , ... 109 Mo. 496, 19 S.W. 47 ... And the ... general charter granted power to regulate the use of its ... streets, is sufficiently comprehensive to authorize the city ... to pass all necessary ordinances for ... ...
-
State ex rel. Bothwell v. Green
... ... McHenry v. Jenkins, 43 Mo. 261 all have to do with ... special enactments harmonizing the terms of the same offices ... throughout the state and are not applicable here. State ... ex rel. Tredway v. Lusk, 18 Mo. 333 was overruled by ... State ex rel. Attorney General v. Thomas, 102 Mo ... 85, 14 S.W. 108. State ex inf. Hulen v. Brown and ... Barnett, 220 Mo.App. 468, 274 S.W. 965 is ... distinguishable on the facts ... The ... legislative policy for filling vacancies has been described ... by the learned Judge White in State ex inf. Barrett v ... ...
-
State v. City of St. Louis
...regard is plenary, and cannot be gainsaid unless their customary meaning and effect be denied to plain words. See, also, State v. Thomas, 102 Mo. 85, 14 S. W. 108; State v. Schweickhardt, 109 Mo. 496, 19 S. W. 47. And the general charter-granted power to regulate the use of its streets is s......
-
The State Ex Inf. Crow v. Smith
...law, can not enlarge the boundaries of his official term, or arrest the operation of the power of appointment or election." State ex rel. v. Thomas, 102 Mo. 91; State rel. v. Stonestreet, 99 Mo. 361; State ex rel. v. Manning, 84 Mo. 661; State ex rel. v. Spitz, 127 Mo. 248; State ex rel. v.......