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

the same as those involved in the case
OF Snow VS.. Hudson heretofore decided
by this court? In that case Snow
showed that he was state printer de
facto; that there was a bonafide dis
pute between himself and Hundson as
to who was state printer de jure; that
Hudson was threatening to GUST Snow
from the possession of said office, and
deprive him of the profits and emolu-
ments thereof, and that Hudson was
insolvent. These, in brief, were the
facts relied upon by Snow in that case
for an injunction. This court denied
the temporary injunction, believing
the circumstances surrounding the as
sertlon of Snow that he was state
printer de jure were not such as to
justify a court of equity in interfering
to protect him as officer de facto.
In the case at bar it is shown that
Hudson is state printer de facto; that
there is still a dispute as to who is
state printer de jure, unless the decis-
ion of the supreme court has settled
that question; that Hudson was recog-
n1zed as state printer de facto- and de
jure by w. c. Edwards as secretary of
state, Otis L. Anterior as state treas
urer and F. B. Dawes as attorney gen
eral, acting in their official capacities,
during their entire term OF offlce; that
the present state officers, acting in their
official capacities, have recognized Hud-
son as state printer de factO, have turn
ed over to him the stock provided by
law for the use of the state printer,
ana nave maze upon HlIIl
for various kinds of printing on behalf
of the state; that the senate and house
of representatives now in session have
recognized him as state printer
to do and making acquisitions up
on him for the printing rendered nee
eSSary by reason of the present session
of the legislature, and refused to elect
a successor; that Snow brought suit
against Hudson in the supreme court to
recover possession of this office and was
defeated in that action, and also
brought suit in the supreme court
against w. c. Edwards, as secretary OF
state, to compel Edwards to recognize
him as state printer. in which action
he was also unsuccessful; that in each
of these actions in the supreme court
Shows title to the office was directly in
issue and judgment rendered against
him.
1t is clear that the present case is much
stronger in Hudson's behalf than the case
of Snow VS.. Hudson heretofore decided by
this court. In the consideration OF the
questions involved here, great stress is
laid upon the judgment of the supreme
court rendered in the cases wherein Snow
was asserting. title to this office
1t was insisted in the argument by de-
PENDANTS as there is now a case pending
in the supreme court in the name of the
state against Hudson to determine who Is
state printer, that the jurisdiction of this
court may conflict with that of the SUI
But there and will be no such con-
rict of jurisdiction. This case will not
%
court has decided the case there pending,
and if IT. shall be held in that action that
Snow is state printer, this court will see
to it that no order or judgment is made
by this court which will interfere with the
jurisdiction of that court
Some discussion was had in the argu-
rnent of this case as to whether the judg
ment heretofore rendered in the case of
Snow vs. Hudson would be treated as res
adjudicata in the case now pending in
the supreme e0uFt but TINS S99rt is mot
court will doubtless determine that guess
ton correctly when called upon to de-
eide it.
In accordance with the views expressed
in this opinion. the application for tenn
porary injunction will be sustained
against the defendants, e H. Snow and
w. f. Bush. secretary of state, and will
be denied as to defendants l. c. Boyle,
attorney general, and d. H Henlebower,
state trea
TrOutmOn were the attorneys in the case
for Major Hudson and David Overmyer
and G.. c. Clemens appeared for E. H.
Snow.