Case ID: kan_21/html/0478-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary P. Wright v. Commissioners of Coffey County.
    
      Error from Coffey District Court.
    
    Action brought- by Mary P. Wright against the Board of Commissioners of Coffey County, to recover the sum of $941.66, which1 plaintiff claimed to be due her for salary as superintendent of public instruction for said county, from January 11th, 1875,. to July 20th, 1876. The petition alleges in substance, the following facts:
    At the general election held in Coffey county, Kansas, November 3rd, 1874, the plaintiff, Mary P. Wright, J. H. Noell, and G. N. McConnell, were candidates for the office of county superintendent of public instruction. McConnell at that time was the lawful incumbent of said office. Plaintiff received the highest number of votes cast for said office. The board of canvassers issued to her a certificate of election, and she filed her oath and official bond. J. H. Noell received the next highest number of votes cast for said office. November 7th, 1874, Noell began proceedings under § 89, of ch. 36, General Statutes 1868, to contest the eligibility of plaintiff to 'said office, and to have himself declared elected thereto. December 7th, 1874, the trial court decided plaintiff to be ineligible to said office, and that no person was elected thereto. December 30th, 1874, the district court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. July, 1876, plaintiff became a non-resident of Coffey county. October, 1876, the supreme court reversed the judgment of district and the trial court. McConnell continued to perform the duties and received the salary of said office until after the general election in November, 1875, at which election J. M. Rankin was elected to said office, and took immediate possession thereof, and performed the duties of this office and received the salary therefor until July 11, 1876, when he resigned and P, K. Wadhams was appointed, and he has ever since performed the duties of said office and received the salary therefor. During the term of said office for which plaintiff was elected, up to the time she became a non-resident of the county, the defendant paid to McConnell, Rankin and Wadhams, salary to the amonnt of $941.66.
    At the December Term, 1877, of the district court, the defendant demurred to the foregoing petition, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. The court sustained said demurrer and rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs, to which ruling and judgment Miss Wright excepted, and brought the case here for review.
    
      A. M. F. Randolph, for plaintiff in error, cited: Auditors of Wayne Co. v. Benoit, 20 Mich, 188; Weeks v. Ellis, 2 Barb. 325; Riddle v. Bedford, 7 Serg. & R. 386; Parker v. Luffborough, 10 Serg. & R. 249; Keyser v. McKissan, 2 Rawle, 140; Stadler v. City of Detroit, 13 Mich. 347; Glascock v. Lyons, 20 Ind. 3; Dorsey v. Smyth, 28 Cal. 21.
    
      Graves & Manchester, for defendant in error,'cited: §3 of art. 9 of Const, of Kansas; 2 Kent’s Com. 295; Auditors of 
      
      Wayne Co. v.-Benoit, 20 Mich. 176; Dolan v. Mayor, ete., 68 N. Y. 274; 23 Am. Rep. 168; Comm’rs of Saline Co. v. Anderson, 20 Kas. 298, and cases cited'therein; People v. Miller, ■24 Mich. 458; Mayfield v. Moore, 53 111. 428; Qlaseoelc v. ■Lyons, 20 Inch 1; 5 Am. Rep. 52; 9 Am. Rep. 131; People v. Coolo, 8 N. Y., and eases there cited; 4 Am. Rep. 387.
   February ,4th, 1879, the judgment of the court below in this case was affirmed, but no opinion was filed herein.