The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-02-22

due process of law; that defendant
Snow intends to intrude into said office
and exclude the plaintiff therefrom
that said Snow has acquired no rights
to said office in addition to those posses
sed by him at the time of the decision
of the supreme court of the two cases
referred to. That defendant Snow is
insolvent and should he be recognized
by his co-defendants and permitted to
receive the emOluments of said ofhce
during contest in the courts, PLAINTIFF
would be unable to recover any OF the
profits or emoluments of said office
wrongfully paid to defendant Snow.
Upon these allegations plaintiff prays
for an injunction.
Defendant Snow claims that he is
state printer entitled to the possessions
of the office, and is doing what he can
to GUST plaintiff from said Office and
obtain possession thereof. He denies
that the question of the title to this
office has been decided adversely to
him by the supreme court, denies that
there is any judgment of any court de-
termininE his right to this office, denies
the allegation of insolvency and denies
generally the right of plaintiff to an
injunction.
The affidavit of defendant L. c. Boyle,
attorney general, filed in this case, de-
MES that he is threatening to recOg-
nize Snow as state printer, but on the
contrary says that he has instituted
proceedings in the supreme court in the
name of the state to determine the title
to said office, and does not intend TAX
ing any action affecting the rights of
plaintiff until that case is finally de-
cided by the supreme court.
Defendant D. H. Hef1ebower, state
treasurer, denies that he is taking any
action in relation to the state printer
contest affecting the rights of plaintiff,
and says, in effect. that he does not in
tend to take any such action until the
question is settled by a decision of the
case now pending in the supreme court.
Defendant w. E. Bush, secretary of
state, has filed no affidavit setting
forth his actions or intentions in rela-
ton to the controversy over this office.
1t is possible this omission is the result
of an oversight or misunderstanding on
the part of the attorneys representing
the defendants. For the purposes of
this motion, however, and in the alb
sence of any denial on the part of the
secretary of state or any explanation
of his attitude, the allegations of plain
tiff's verified petition must be taken as
true.
The controversy over this office is not
new to this court. In June, 1898, De-
PENDANT Snow, who was then in pos
sion of this office, brought suit in this
court asking an injunction against
Hudson to prevent him from Interior
ing with Shows possession of the Of
flee until Hudson should establish his
right thereto in an action at law From
the steps taken in that case and sub
sequent proceedings in the supreme
court the judge of this court is familiar
with this controversy. SHOWS appn-
cation for an Injunction in that case
was denied and the action was there
after dismissed.
1t is commended by defendant Snow
that the case now before US is the same
case that was heretofore decided by
this court, with the position of the par
ties reversed; that he now stands where
Hudson stood then. If it is true that
action that was decided in that, then
this application for temporary inJunc-
hsS ia6 fOF "a 2 +
isfied with the decision then made.
It is contenGed on behalf of plaintiff
Hudson that the rights of the parties
in this suit are not the same as they
were in that suit; that in this action he
has all the rights Snow then claimed
and. in addition thereto, has a judgment
of the supreme court in which 1T is de-
cided that Snow is not state printer.
Much has been said about the opinion
of the supreme court in the case of
Snow VS. Hudson and Snow VS.. Ed
wards as secretary of state, reported in
Sc Kan. 37S 1t is contended by Hudson
that the decision in those cases is de-
cisive of this, while it is cOntended on
Shows part that the decision in those
cases does not determine or settle the
question of his right to this Office. 1t is
obvious from an examination of the
opinion in those cases that the justices
of the supreme court were wide apart
on the questions of law involved. JUS
tice Allen, who wrote the opinion, held
that Snow was entitled to recover; that
he was state printer; that he was elect
ed in 1891: that when a joint convention
of the legislature is held a majority of
the votes cast at such joint convention
is sufficient to elect: that there was no
joint convention held in 1895 because
there was not quorum of the senate
present, and that, therefore, Hudson was
not legally elected state printer. Justice
Johnson held that Snow was legally
elected in 1891; that when a joint con-
vention of the legislature is held a ma
Jority of the votes cast at such joint