Taylor v. State ex rel. Ogle

• Decision Date: 03 April 1907
• Docket Number: No. 20,805.,20,805.
• Citation: 168 Ind. 294,80 N.E. 849
• Parties: TAYLOR v. STATE ex rel. OGLE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

168 Ind. 294

80 N.E. 849

TAYLOR

v.STATE ex rel. OGLE.

No. 20,805.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 3, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sullivan County; O. B. Harris, Judge.

Quo warranto by the state, on the relation of Tilghman Ogle, against Robert Taylor. From a judgment for relator, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. W. Lindley and Douthitt & Haddon, for appellant. Charles D. Hunt, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY, C. J.

This is an action of quo warranto, brought by the relator to recover possession of the office of clerk of the Sullivan circuit court. The constitutionality of a statute being involved and presented by the record, the appeal is within the jurisdiction of this court. Appellant's demurrer to the information, on the ground of insufficient facts, was overruled; and he filed an affirmative answer, setting up fully and in detail the facts relied upon as a defense. A demurrer for want of facts was sustained to the answer, and, appellant declining to plead further, judgment was rendered against him in accordance with the prayer of the information. Appellant charges that the court below erred (1) in overruling his demurrer to the information or complaint, and (2) in sustaining relator's demurrer to the answer.

The facts giving rise to the controversy, as shown by the information and answer, briefly stated, are as follows: At the general election, held in 1898, appellant was elected clerk of the Sullivan circuit court, and entered upon the duties of his office March 28, 1900, to serve for a term of four years, and until his successor should be elected and qualified. The relator was elected as appellant's successor in said office at the November election in 1902. The General Assembly of 1901 passed an act relating to the office of “county clerks,” which appellant contends fixed January 1, 1905, as the beginning of the term of office to which the relator was elected. Acts 1901, p. 411, c. 182. After the relator had been elected and commissioned as such clerk, the Legislature of 1903 repealed the act of 1901 in so far as it related to the office of “county clerks.” Acts 1903, p. 32, c. 19. Appellant's term as clerk regularly expired March 28, 1904; and prior thereto appellee duly qualified, and on said date demanded possession of the office. The controversy involves the title and right to possession of the office from March 28, 1904, to January 1, 1905. The office in controversy exists in pursuance of a mandate of the Constitution of the state, and its proper name is “clerk of the circuit court.” Article 6, § 2, Const. Ind.; Bolds v. Woods, 9 Ind. App. 657, 36 N. E. 933. In the course of legislation many duties have been devolved upon this officer, wholly independent of his relation to the court, and in many instances he has been inaccurately styled “clerk of the county,” and “county clerk.” Correctly speaking, no such officer as “county clerk” is known in the law of this state. The present controversy in no way involves legislation upon collateral subjects, in which the clerk of the circuit court may be designated or referred to as “county clerk,” and this opinion is not to be construed as intimating that in any such cases the legislative intent may not be sufficiently manifest and validly expressed.

The act under consideration (Acts 1901, p. 411, c. 182) purported to fix the time when the terms of certain county officers should begin, and the first question arising upon this appeal is whether that act effectually changed the beginning of the term of the clerk of the Sullivan circuit court from March 28, 1904, to January 1, 1905. The statute is addressed directly to that subject, and supplies no aids to...