Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1905-01-10

made to or filed with the officer, board
or body designated by law to receive
the same and possessing legal
authority to act upon it. there can be
no one under legal obligation to take
the steps required for the election OF
appointment of successor. Nc
doubt is entertained of the correct
ness of the rule.
Though not necessary for the
purpose of answering your questions.
in view of the fact that Mr. Met t;amley
may see tit to make another attempt
TO lay down his office as ward super
visor. 1t may be we'll To call attention
to some further rules respecting
official designations.
1t is a we'll settled rule of the com
mon law, recognized and followed in
the United States courts and in many
of the courts of the American states
but not in all, that the resignation OF
a public officer, though made in the
manner required by law, is not com
plete until it has been accepted by
the officer or board authorized by law
to accept the same: and until the
resignation is so accepted the person
resigning continues in Office aud is
subject to the duties and obligations
thereof.
Edwards VS.. United States, l03 e.
S., All:
People VS.. Williams. l45 H., 573;
State VS.. Clayton, 27 Kan, 442:
Same case, Al Am. Rep, Ais;
Rogers VS.. Slonaker, 32 Kan, 191:
Clark VS.. Bd. of Education, liz Mich.
656:
State VS.. Ferguson, 81 n. j. L., 1O7
Freyer.vs. Norton n. }. 1902, sc
All. Rep, 66l;
Hoke VS.. Henderson, 4 Dew. IN. G.
L l, % Am. Dec, 677;
State VS.. Commonwealth, Is Pa. ST.,
451:
Coleman VS.. Sands, 81 Va, $50;
Byars VS.. Crisp, 2 Tex. App. Civ
Cas-, 7O8.
See also.
Mechem on Pub. Officers, Secs. 400
Ala, 4l6:
l Dillon on Municipal Corps, 4th
ed, Sec. 224.
In Mechem ON Public Officers, Sec
II. it is said:
"Where, because of the office he
seeks to resign. he is Ineligible tC
another office. he continues sc
(neligibIe) until his resignation is
accepted
And again. in Sec. 4l6, Mechem
says:
"Where the law expressly provides
as it does in many states, that al
officer shall continue to hold office
until his successor is chosen and
qualified, he will. Notwithstanding
the acceptance of his resignation
continue in office and be charged with
all its duties and responsibilities until
such successor is chosen and qualified >
In note to Sec. pa of Dillon on
Municipal Corporations it is said:
The statute may provide that the
officer shall continue until his sue
ceSSOr is elected and qualified. and in
such case he will not cease to be an
officer merely by resigning so as to be
relieved from the discharge of his
duties as such officer"
The rule stated in the foregoing
quotations is significant in view OF
the fact that the city charter law
expressly provides that the various
officers chosen in cities land this, as
we have seen. includes the ward
supervisors shall hold their Offices
until their successors are qualified
See Secs. 925-26, 925-2S, Stat. 1898.
While we have found no Wisconsin
decisions bearing directly upon the
question, we think it may be safely
concluded, on the facts as stated
that the attempted resignation of Mr.
McCamley was Intellectual for any
purpose: that he was still supervisor
of his ward and member of the
county board at the time the second
| ballot was taken and therefore
| ineligible to the office of supervisor
of assessments. We think we SHOULD
state further that under the provisions
| vf the charter requiring him to hold
the office of ward supervisor until his
successor is qualified, it is at least
| doubtful whether he can diveSl
himself of that office until his reSigna
tion has been presented to the proper
authorities and accepted and bis
successors chosen and qualified
Under many of the authorities quoted
above, a public office is not to bt
| regarded as a personal privilege to-be
renounced at pleasure but as i'm
posing a burden of duty to the publ,
the performance of which he is not al
liberty to decline until the prope
authorities have opportunity tt
transfer those duties to some othe
person.
See Mechem on Pub. Officers, Sec
400:
Edwards VS.. United States, los q
S., All:
Hoke VS.. Henderson, Dev IN. G.
L. /;
| Same Case 25 Am. Dec. 677.
There is presented the furthe
question, whether, by reason of tn,
ineligibility of Mr.. McCamley the
votes cast for him for the office o
supervisor of assessments can b.
regarded as nullitieS so that th
person receiving the next higheS