State ex rel. McGowan v. Sedgwick

127 P. 94, 46 Mont. 187, 1912 Mont. LEXIS 107
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 9, 1912
DocketNo. 3,242
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 127 P. 94 (State ex rel. McGowan v. Sedgwick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. McGowan v. Sedgwick, 127 P. 94, 46 Mont. 187, 1912 Mont. LEXIS 107 (Mo. 1912).

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE HOLLOWAY

delivered the opinion of the court.

■ E. M. Kennedy and Thomas Dowen were duly elected county commissioners of Chouteau county for the terms expiring, respectively, on the first Monday in January, 1915, and 1917. They qualified as such and entered upon the discharge of their duties; but upon the creation of Blaine and Hill counties these men resigned, and the judge of the district court of the twelfth judicial district in and for Chouteau county appointed H. J. Wackerlin “to fill the unexpired term of E. M. Kennedy,” and John Y. Carroll “to fill the unexpired term of Thomas Dowen,” and each of these appointees duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties, and is now serving as county commissioner of Chouteau county. At a regular county convention of the Democratic party of Chouteau county, called to nominate candidates for the various county offices to be filled at the ensuing general election in November of this year, relator McGowan was duly nominated a candidate for the office of county commissioner to fill the unexpired term of Thomas Dowen, and at a like convention of the Progressive party relator Lewis was nominated a candidate to fill the unexpired term of E. M. Kennedy. Each of these- nominees is qualified to hold the office to which he aspires in ease of his election. When the certificate of nomination for each of these nominees was presented to the county clerk of Chouteau county, he refused to file it, and announced his determination not to print the name of either upon the official ballot; proceeding upon the theory that each of the persons appointed by the district judge held-for the residue of the term of the person whom he succeeded. An original application for mandate was made to this court.The alternative writ issued, and upon the return the respondent clerk appeared by general demurrer and motion to quash, and the cause was submitted for final determination; it being an[189]*189nounced in open court that the affidavit for the writ correctly states the facts.

The question presented is: Does the person appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of county commissioner hold during the [1] remainder of the unexpired term of the man whose position he is appointed to fill, when such unexpired term extends beyond the first Monday in January next succeeding a general election? The several provisions of our state Constitution covering the tenure in office of one appointed to fill a vacancy in an elective office are: Section 7, Article VII: “If the office of Secretary of State, State Auditor, State Treasurer, Attorney General, or Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be vacated by death, resignation or otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Governor to. fill the same by appointment, and the appointee shall hold his office until his successor shall be elected and qualified.” Section 84, Article VIII: “Vacancies in the office of Justice of the Supreme Court, or judge of the district court, or clerk of the Supreme Court, shall be filled by appointment, by the Governor of the state, and vacancies in the offices of county attorneys, clerk of the district court, and justices of the peace shall be filled by appointment by the board of county commissioners of the county where such vacancy occurs. A person appointed to fill any such vacancy shall hold his office until his successor is elected and qualified.” Section 4, Article XVI: “A vacancy in the board of county commissioners shall be filled by appointment by the judge of the judicial district in which the vacancy occurs.” Section 5, Article XVI: “Vacancies in all county, township and precinct offices, except that of county commissioners, shall be filled by appointment by the board of county commissioners, and the appointee shall hold his office until the next general election.” In case the governor resigns, “the duties and emoluments of the office for the residue of the term” devolve upon the lieutenant-governor. (Art. VII, sec. 14.) It will be seen that the only instance in which authority is' given to one called upon to fill a vacancy to hold for the residue of the term is in case of a vacancy in the office of governor, and in that instance the lieutenant-governor becomes [190]*190governor by right of succession, and not of appointment. In every instance of appointment to fill a vacancy in an elective office, unless an exception be made in the office of county commissioner, the Constitution specifically limits the tenure of the appointee to the next general election or until his successor is elected and qualified; and the phrase “until his successor is elected and qualified” is literally construed by the Constitution itself, in the concluding sentence of section 34 of Article VIII: “A person elected to fill a vacancy shall hold office until the expiration of the term for which the person he succeeds was elected”; for, if an appointee holds for the residue of the term, then there could never be “a person elected to fill a vacancy” if an appointment had been made. That sentence is intelligible only upon the theory that the appointee holds only until the next general election or until the person elected for the residue of the term qualifies.

While the policy of the law is not a controlling factor in determining the meaning of constitutional or statutory provisions, it is persuasive. A reference to the several provisions of the Constitution above discloses that in every instance of a vacancy in an elective office, where the vacancy is to be filled by appointment, the appointee shall hold only until the people who elected his predecessor have the first opportunity to fill the office with a person of their own choice; and this rule is general, applies to' every state, district and county office, unless an exception is made in favor of one appointed to a vacancy in the office of county commissioner. There is not any reason apparent or suggested why an exception in his favor should be made, and that there is not any express exception is conceded. But it is argued that the tenure of such an appointee is not specifically fixed, and therefore the authority given the district judge to fill the vacancy implies the power to fill the office for the residue of the term.

Whether our Constitution fails to define the tenure of one appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of county commissioner depends upon the construction to be given to the language of section 5 of Article XVI above. Counsel for respondent insist [191]*191that this section excepts county commissioners from the list of appointees who hold only until the next general election; while counsel for relator urge that the exemption clause applies only to the appointing power. The language is somewhat indefinite, and yet, in view of the fact that in the preceding section of that .Article the district judge is designated as the authority to fill a vacancy in the office of county commissioner by appointment, and there is not anything said as to the term of the appointee ; that it would be manifestly improper to permit the board of county commissioners to appoint one to a vacancy on that board, and, indeed, in the present instance there was not any board in existence after Kennedy and Do wen resigned; and in view of the general policy expressed by the Constitution with respect to every other elective office, and the general policy of our government that as to officers who are elected “the theory, of our law is that officers shall be elected whenever it can be conveniently done, and. that appointments to office will be tolerated only in exceptional cases” (Rice v. Stevens, 25 Kan.

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

Related

Nelson v. City of Billings and MMIA
2018 MT 36 (Montana Supreme Court, 2018)
Valenti v. Rockefeller
292 F. Supp. 851 (S.D. New York, 1969)
Bailey v. Knight
168 P.2d 843 (Montana Supreme Court, 1946)
Winter v. Davis
152 P.2d 249 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1944)
State Ex Rel. Niewoehner v. Bottomly
148 P.2d 545 (Montana Supreme Court, 1944)
State Ex Rel. Greene v. Anderson
129 P.2d 874 (Montana Supreme Court, 1942)
State Ex Rel. Hamshaw v. Justice Court
88 P.2d 1 (Montana Supreme Court, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Lamey v. Mitchell
34 P.2d 369 (Montana Supreme Court, 1934)
Great Northern Utilities Co. v. Public Service Commission
293 P. 294 (Montana Supreme Court, 1930)
State Ex Rel. Foot v. Rogge
257 P. 1029 (Montana Supreme Court, 1927)
State Ex Rel. Morgan v. Knight
245 P. 267 (Montana Supreme Court, 1926)
Fergus Motor Co. v. Sorenson
235 P. 422 (Montana Supreme Court, 1925)
Swords v. Simineo
216 P. 806 (Montana Supreme Court, 1923)
State ex rel. Thacher v. Boyle
204 P. 378 (Montana Supreme Court, 1921)
County of Hill v. County of Liberty
203 P. 500 (Montana Supreme Court, 1921)
Marcellus v. Wright
202 P. 381 (Montana Supreme Court, 1921)
Davis v. Stewart
171 P. 281 (Montana Supreme Court, 1918)
State ex rel. Patterson v. Lentz
146 P. 932 (Montana Supreme Court, 1915)
State ex rel. Rowe v. Kehoe
144 P. 162 (Montana Supreme Court, 1914)
State ex rel. Hillis v. Sullivan
137 P. 392 (Montana Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 P. 94, 46 Mont. 187, 1912 Mont. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mcgowan-v-sedgwick-mont-1912.