State Ex Rel. McNamee v. Spinner

Nevada Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. McNamee v. Spinner

37 P. 837, 22 Nev. 213

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 5, 1894

DocketNo. 1412.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 37 P. 837 (State Ex Rel. McNamee v. Spinner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada 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. McNamee v. Spinner, 37 P. 837, 22 Nev. 213 (Neb. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Belknap, J.:

This is an application for a writ of mandanvux requiring the respondent, as ex officio auditor of Eureka county, to audit and allow the relator’s claim for salary as justice of the peace of Eureka township.

At the session of the legislature in the year 1891, an act was passed allowing the justice of the peace of Eureka township a salary of $60 per month, in lieu of fees. (Stats. 1891, *217 p. 35.) The only question is whether the legislature had the power to adopt a special law applicable to the incumbent of this office.

The objection is that the law is special and local, regulating county and township business, contrary to the provisions of section 20 of article IV. of the constitution.

The authority to enact special laws fixing the compensation of county officers has been frequently exercised by the legislature. No judicial question as to the constitutionality of such legislation had been made until the case of State v. Vogue, 19 Nev. 247, was decided. In that case the power of the legislature to adopt laws of this nature was upheld. That decision was followed and approved in the case of Mining Co. v. Allen. 21 Nev. 325.

It would seem that these cases should have settled the question adversely to the relator’s contention, but the constitution itself has been amended since the decision in State v. Vogue, and, as amended, removes, in terms, all restrictions upon the legislature upon the subject of compensation of county and township officers. The amendment is as follows: “ Sec. 20. The legislature shall not p.ass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: * * * regulating county and township business. * * * But nothing in this section shall be construed to deny or restrict the power of the legislature to establish and regulate the compensation and fees of county and township officers.”

Let the ma.ndamue issue.

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

By the Court,

Belknap, J.:

This is an application for a writ of mandanvux requiring the respondent, as ex officio auditor of Eureka county, to audit and allow the relator’s claim for salary as justice of the peace of Eureka township.

At the session of the legislature in the year 1891, an act was passed allowing the justice of the peace of Eureka township a salary of $60 per month, in lieu of fees. (Stats. 1891, *217 p. 35.) The only question is whether the legislature had the power to adopt a special law applicable to the incumbent of this office.

The objection is that the law is special and local, regulating county and township business, contrary to the provisions of section 20 of article IV. of the constitution.

The authority to enact special laws fixing the compensation of county officers has been frequently exercised by the legislature. No judicial question as to the constitutionality of such legislation had been made until the case of State v. Vogue, 19 Nev. 247, was decided. In that case the power of the legislature to adopt laws of this nature was upheld. That decision was followed and approved in the case of Mining Co. v. Allen. 21 Nev. 325.

It would seem that these cases should have settled the question adversely to the relator’s contention, but the constitution itself has been amended since the decision in State v. Vogue, and, as amended, removes, in terms, all restrictions upon the legislature upon the subject of compensation of county and township officers. The amendment is as follows: “ Sec. 20. The legislature shall not p.ass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: * * * regulating county and township business. * * * But nothing in this section shall be construed to deny or restrict the power of the legislature to establish and regulate the compensation and fees of county and township officers.”

Let the ma.ndamue issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 P. 837, 22 Nev. 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mcnamee-v-spinner-nev-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack