Gilbert v. City of Paducah

72 S.W. 816, 115 Ky. 160, 1903 Ky. LEXIS 87
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMarch 18, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 72 S.W. 816 (Gilbert v. City of Paducah) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gilbert v. City of Paducah, 72 S.W. 816, 115 Ky. 160, 1903 Ky. LEXIS 87 (Ky. Ct. App. 1903).

Opinion

Opinion op the court by

JUDGE HOBSON

Reversing.

By the act of September 30, 1892 (see Ky. St., section 2740), Paducah was assigned to cities of the third class. At the regular election in November, 1901, it elected various city officers, as provided by the laws governing third class cities. At this election appellant Gilbert was elected prosecuting attorney of the police court, and appellant Crow was elected marshal, each for a term of four years. Kentucky Státutes, sections 3369, 3338. Each of them qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties. By section 3373, Kentucky Statutes, the prosecuting attorney of the police court receives as his compensation 30 per cent, of all fines and forfeitures recovered in the court. By section 3349, the marshal receives such compensation in the way of salary, commissions, and fees as are prescribed in the statute or by ordinance, which shall not be changed during his term of office. While they were discharging their duties, the General Assembly, by an act approved March 21, 1902, struck out Paducah from the list of cities of the third class, and added it to the list of cities of the ■second class; but the act is silent as to how the transfer is to take effect, or what shall become of the officers of the city elected and holding under the charter as a third-class [169]*169city, nothing further being provided than that the city shall be transferred from the third class to the second class. Acts 1902, p. 115. By the charter of the second-class cities, the office of city attorney is created, corresponding to the office of prosecuting attorney of the police court, and he is paid such a salary .as the general council shall deem proper. Kentucky Statutes, sections 3165', 3167. 'Aftter the transfer of the city to the second class, the general council passed an ordinance fixing appellant Gilbert’s salary at $100 a month. This he declined to receive. There is no such office as marshal in second-class cities. The duties of marshal in the third-class cities are imposed upon the chief of police in second-class cities. Kentucky Statutes, section 3168. A chief of police was appointed, and appellant Crow was dropped. Kentucky Statutes, section 3138. Appellants, Gilbert and Crow, filed these suits to restrain the city from interfering with them in the discharge of their official duties, or depriving them of the compensation attached thereto, during the term for which they were elected. Their petitions were dismissed, and they have appealed.

Section 156 of the Constitution, among other things, provides: “The General Assembly shall assign the cities and towns of the Commonwealth to the classes to which they respectively belong and change assignments made as the population of said cities and towns may increase or decrease, and in the .absence of other satisfactory information as to their population, shall be governed by the last preceding federal census in so doing; but no city or town shall be transferred from one class to another, except in pursuance of a law previously ’enacted .and providing -therefor.” It is insisted that the act of March 21, 1902, is invalid, under this provision, for the reason that no law had been previously enacted providing for the transfer of cities from [170]*170one class to another. The, General, Assembly in the act of June 14, 1893, made a general law providing for the transfer of cities- of the third class. Kentucky Statutes, section 3264. It is in these-words: “When the population of any city> of this class, as ascertained by the last federal ■ census, or by a census taken pursuant to an ordinance of said city, authorizing it to be placed in a class other than that in which it is, the council of such city may enact an ordinance, setting 'forth the population of the city, and how ascertained, the class it is then in, and the class which it is entitled to be in, and may file a: petition in the circuit clerk’s office of the county, declaring the facts with reference to its population and the class it desires to become a member of and such othér facts1 as may be thought proper, and shall file with such petition a copy of the ordinance, and shall cause notice of the filing.of such petition,1 and the object thereof, to be published in at least six issues of a daily or two issues of a weekly paper, of general circulation, published in the city, or in the county, if none be published in the city; or jf no paper be published in the city or county, by.notices posted up for at least ten days, at four public places in said city. On the second day of the next regular term of the court, the court shall, if the proper notice has been given, or publication made, and no defense is interposed, enter a judgment assigning such city to the class to which it belongs1, as appears from the petition and exhibits, and thereafter such city shall be governed by and under the general laws relating to the class to which it has been assigned, but the transfer from one class to another shall not in any wise impair or affect any ordinance or by-law theretofore enacted by such city, unless the same is1 in conflict with the general laws relating to cities of the class to which it has been assigned, and to such extent only shall [171]*171any ordinance or by-law be repealed by the transfer, nor-shall the powers, rights, duties' or obligations of the city be in any wise affected by the transfer or any officer or employe thereof, or any debtor or creditor of the city. Defense may be made to the petition by any inhabitant of the city; and if defense is made the court shall hear and determine the same, and render a judgment transferring or refusing to transfer the city to another class, as may seem proper. The pleadings iand practice shall be the same as in equity cases, except as herein provided; but if the court shall be satisfied that the population of the city entitles it to be transferred to another cldss, it shall so adjudge- if the proper notice or publication has been made; and no appeal shall lie from the judgment.”

Similar provisions were attempted to be made as to other cities and towns by sections 3661, 366,2; but so much of these -sections as authorizes the court to assign or transfer a town or city from one class to another was held unconstitutional in Jernigan v. City of Madisonville, 102 Ky., 313, 19 R., 1412, 43 S. W., 448. Yet in that case the court said: “So much of said sections, however, as provide means for taking the census or determining the population of any such city or town are constitutional and valid, and when the population of a town is ascertained, pursuant to the provisions of said sections, the Legislature will be authorized to make the proper transfer of such town or.city.” The. same rule must necessarily be applied to section 3264. A census was taken by the city of Paducali, showing that it had the required population, and an ordinance of the city was .then passed, setting forth the population of the city, and how ascertained, the class it was in, and the class in which it was entitled to be; and, these facts being laid before the Legislature, the act in question was passed. We . [172]*172are of opinion therefore, that under the rule heretofore laid down by this court, from which we are unwilling to depart, the act of March 21, 1902, was not invalid, because no previous law had been passed providing for such transfer.

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

Related

Owens v. Maze
132 S.W.3d 874 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2003)
Payne v. Davis
254 S.W.2d 710 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1953)
Lowe v. City of Bowling Green
247 S.W.2d 386 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1952)
Burton v. Graham
242 S.W.2d 855 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1951)
City of Somerset v. Caylor
241 S.W.2d 990 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1951)
Stewart v. Kidd
89 S.W.2d 861 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1936)
Carroll v. Fullerton
286 S.W. 847 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1926)
Whitt v. Wilson
278 S.W. 609 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1925)
City of Richmond v. Mayo Land & Bridge Co.
91 S.E. 615 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1917)
Tandy & Fairleigh Tobacco Co. v. City of Hopkinsville
192 S.W. 46 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1917)
Bridgman v. Roberts, Mayor
1914 OK 118 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 S.W. 816, 115 Ky. 160, 1903 Ky. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-v-city-of-paducah-kyctapp-1903.