Cameron, Superintendent v. Parker

33 P. 14, 2 Okla. 277
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 23, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 33 P. 14 (Cameron, Superintendent v. Parker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cameron, Superintendent v. Parker, 33 P. 14, 2 Okla. 277 (Okla. 1894).

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered by On the 23d day of February, 1894, Evan D. Cameron, as superintendent of public instruction and ex-officio auditor of the Territory of Oklahoma, filed his petition and affidavit for a writ of mandamus against J. H. Parker, in this court, praying that an alternative writ issue, commanding said defendant, J. H. Parker, on service thereof, to forthwith deliver to him all office furniture and fixtures, seal, books, records, files and other property, of every kind or character, belonging or pertaining to the office of superintendent of public instruction and ex-officio auditor of the Territory of Oklahoma, as aforesaid, or, on default thereof, to be and appear before the supreme court of Oklahoma Territory, on the 1st day of March, 1894, at 10 o'clock A. M., to show why he has not so rendered obedience as commanded in said writ.

The writ was allowed by Associate Justice Scott, which, embracing all exhibits, and ommitting caption and attestation, reads as follows:

"The Territory of Oklahoma, to J. H. Parker, Greeting:

"Whereas, it has been made to appear to said court and the Hon. Henry W. Scott, associate justice thereof, by the petition and affidavit of the plaintiff, Evan D. Cameron, that you, the said J. H. Parker, were, on the 21st day of February, 1894, the duly qualified and acting superintendent of public instruction, and ex-officio auditor of the Territory of Oklahoma; that on said day, acting upon charges filed, and after due notice *Page 279 and hearing, his excellency, William C. Renfrow, governor of the Territory of Oklahoma, removed you, the said Parker, from said office for cause, to-wit: malfeasance in office and neglect of duty, a copy of said order of removal, made as aforesaid, is hereto attached, marked 'Exhibit A', and made a part of this writ; that thereby said office became and was vacant; that afterwards, on said 21st day of February, the plaintiff, Evan D. Cameron, was duly appointed and commissioned as superintendent of public instruction, and ex-officio auditor of the Territory of Oklahoma, vice J. H. Parker, removed; that a copy of said commission is hereto attached and marked 'Exhibit B,' and made a part of this writ; that after the appointment aforesaid, and on the same day, said plaintiff, Evan D. Cameron, qualified as such officer by filing the bonds and subscribing the oath of office required by law; that he then and there became and now is the legally qualified incumbent of said office.

"That the said defendant, Parker, after his removal from the office of superintendent of public instruction and ex-officio auditor as aforesaid, retained the exclusive possession of, and continues to retain in his custody and control, all the property and effects belonging to said office, consisting as nearly as can be described, of office furniture and fixtures, a safe, books, records, files, seal and other paraphernalia belonging to said office of superintendent of public instruction and ex-officio auditor of the Territory of Oklahoma; that demand has been made on said defendant, Parker, by the said plaintiff, Cameron, for the possession of said property, paraphernalia and effects belonging to said office, and said Parker wrongfully refused and still wrongfully and unlawfully refuses to deliver the same or any part thereof to the plaintiff; that a copy of said demand, with the affidavit of service by said Evan D. Cameron, is hereto attached marked 'Exhibit C' and made a part of this writ; that by reason of said wrongful and unlawful refusal to deliver said property belonging to said office as aforesaid, the plaintiff is unable to properly discharge his official duties; that he has no adequate remedy at law by which to obtain possession of said property and effects; that unless the relief asked for is granted *Page 280 great injury will result to the public having business with said office, and irreparable injury and damage will be done the plaintiff herein:

"Now, therefore, being willing that full and speedy justice shall be done in the premises, we do command you, the said J. H. Parker, that forthwith on the service of this writ you deliver to the plaintiff, Evan D. Cameron, superintendent of public instruction and ex-officio auditor of the Territory of Oklahoma, the office furniture and fixtures, the seal, books, records, files, safe and all other property and paraphernalia pertaining or in anywise belonging to said office, or that you shall show cause to the honorable supreme court of the Territory of Oklahoma, at its session at 10 o'clock A. M., on the 1st day of March, 1894, at the city of Guthrie, why you have not done so; and have you then and there this writ with your return that you have done as you are hereby commanded.

"(Signed) HENRY W. SCOTT,

"Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma."

"Exhibit A.

"EXECUTIVE OFFICE, February 21, 1894.
"In the matter of the charges and specifications of malfeasance in office and neglect of duty against J. H. Parker, territorial superintendent of public instruction and ex-officio auditor of the Territory of Oklahoma.

"Certain charges and specifications having been preferred against J. H. Parker, superintendent of public instruction and ex-officio auditor, charging malfeasance and neglect of duty, and duly filed in this office, and afterwards certain amended and supplemental charges were filed and a copy of said charges and specifications, as well as the amended and supplemental charges and specifications, having been served on said J. H. Parker, together with a notice of the filing of the same in this office, and said J. H. Parker was given until the 29th day of August, 1893, to file his answer or any other explanation he might desire to make to said charges and specifications. On the 29th day of August, 1893, said Parker appeared at this office in person and by his attorneys, and presented *Page 281 his written objection to the authority of the governor to examine into this matter, which objection was overruled and the said Parker asked for further time to prepare and file a written answer to said charges and specifications, which request for time was granted, and on the 6th day of September, 1893, said J. H. Parker appeared in person and by his attorneys and filed his answer and explanation in writing to said amended charges and specifications.

"After carefully examining and fully investigating said answer and explanation and said matter coming on this day to be further considered, and it appearing that said charges and specifications filed against said Parker, as superintendent of public instruction and ex-officio auditor of said territory, and the evidence submitted in support thereof, and also the answer of said Parker and his explanation of said charges, I find that the allegations of malfeasance in office contained in charge No. 1 and specifications thereunder, have been fully made out and sustained, in this, to-wit.: That said Parker, as such superintendent and auditor, illegally and wrongfully audited and allowed certain accounts for mileage and expenses of the board of regents of the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical college, and also audited and wrongfully allowed certain accounts of said regents for per diem and mileage; and also audited and wrongfully allowed certain accounts of the State Capital Printing Co., for printing the laws of the last legislative assembly of the Territory of Oklahoma, beyond the maximum fixed by law; and I further find that the allegation of neglect of duty, contained in charge No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hall v. Tirey
1972 OK 118 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1972)
State Ex Rel. Hammond v. Maxfield
132 P.2d 660 (Utah Supreme Court, 1942)
Hawley v. Bottolfsen
98 P.2d 634 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1940)
Beckwith v. Bushfield
289 N.W. 421 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Nagle v. Sullivan
40 P.2d 995 (Montana Supreme Court, 1935)
Citizen's Club v. Welling, Secy. of State
27 P.2d 23 (Utah Supreme Court, 1933)
Wentz v. Thomas
1932 OK 636 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
American State Bank v. Jones
239 N.W. 144 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1931)
State Ex Rel. King v. Rowe
1931 OK 328 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Fugate v. Weston
157 S.E. 736 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Loomis v. Dahlem
263 P. 708 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1928)
Myers v. United States
272 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court, 1926)
Angle v. Blake
1925 OK 901 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Kile v. Graham
1925 OK 283 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Bynum v. Strain
1923 OK 596 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
State Ex Inf. Atty. Gen. v. Hedrick
241 S.W. 402 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1922)
People ex rel. Riordan v. Hersey
196 P. 180 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1921)
Independent School District v. Miller
189 Iowa 123 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Rasure v. Sparks
1919 OK 231 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
State ex rel. Shaw v. Frazier
167 N.W. 510 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 P. 14, 2 Okla. 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cameron-superintendent-v-parker-okla-1894.