Case Name: James King, Appellant, v. The City of Ottumwa, Iowa, et al.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1910-06-15
Citations: 148 Iowa 411
Docket Number: 
Parties: James King, Appellant, v. The City of Ottumwa, Iowa, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 411–413

Head Matter:
James King, Appellant, v. The City of Ottumwa, Iowa, et al.
Municipal corporations: appointment of officers : soldiers preference law. The statute requiring the council in cities of the first class to appoint a street commissioner at the first meeting after the biennial election fixes the term of such officer for two years, with express power of appointment at the expiration of that time; and a veteran appointed to the office can not invoke the soldiers preference law as against another qualified veteran appointed at the close of the two year term.
Appeal from Wapello District Court. — Hon. Frank Eichelberger, Judge.
Wednesday, June 15, 1910.
Plaintiff was applicant for the position of street commissioner in the city of Ottumwa in April, 1905, but Andy Hill received the appointment. Thereupon plaintiff instituted suit in mandamus praying that the office be declared vacant and the city council be compelled to appoint him thereto. Issues were joined, but on October 16, 1905, a compromise was effected, in pursuance of which plaintiff was appointed to the position under the soldiers’ preference law. See section 1056al5, Code Supp. 1907 (30th General Assembly, chapter 9). On April 2, 1907, the political complexion of the council having changed, Henry Arnold, also an honorably discharged soldier of the Civil War with requisite qualifications was appointed street commissioner. Subsequently Arnold was removed by the mayor of the city, and Henry Adcock, also a qualified veteran of the Oivil War, was by him appointed in his stead. In this action, plaintiff prayed for restoration to the position and for damages. On hearing the petition was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Chester Whitmore, for appellant.
Clyde Sparks, for appellees.

Opinion:
Ladd, J.
Section 651 of the Code provides that, "in cities of the first class, the council at its first meeting after the biennial election, shall appoint . a street commissioner." This, in effect, fixed the term of such officer for two years, for at the end of that time the power of appointment is expressly conferred. Upon the resignation of one Hill as street commissioner of the city of Ottumwa, the plaintiff was appointed in his stead October 16, 1905, and continued in the discharge of his duties until the first meeting of the council after the biennial election in April, 1907, when, one Henry Arnold was appointed to the position. Subsequently Arnold appears to have been removed by the mayor of the city and Henry Adcock to have succeeded him. Each of these appointees is conceded to have possessed the requisite qualifications under the soldiers' preference law, the sole issue being whether plaintiff, in the absence of removal in pursuance of the procedure prescribed in section 2 of the acts of the Thirtieth General Assembly (section 1056al6, Code Supp. 1907), was entitled to continue in the position of street commissioner indefinitely. The soldiers' preference law does not purport to affect existing laws with respect to terms of office or service. This was recognized in Kitterman v. Board of Supervisors, 145 Iowa, 22. And, where the term is prescribed by statute, the appointment is for the period therein defined, and not indefinitely as in the Kitterman case. The incumbency is terminated by the statute fixing the period of service, and there is no occasion for invoking the section of the preference law relating to removals. The term for which plaintiff was designated expired in April, 1907, and, in appointment of his successor, heed must have been given to the preference law; but plaintiff, because of having served before, was not entitled to preference over others in like situation. Both Arnold, appointed by the council, and Adcock, appointed hy the mayor, after the authority to do so had been conferred on him (section 651, 652, Oode Supp. 1907), are conceded to have been qualified as veterans of the Civil War, and there was no error in dismissing the petition.
Affirmed.