Case Name: TERRITORY of NEW MEXICO ex rel., JESUS MA. SANDOVAL, Appellant v. GEORGE F. ALBRIGHT, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of New Mexico
Jurisdiction: New Mexico
Decision Date: 1904-09-13
Citations: 12 N.M. 293
Docket Number: No. 1023
Parties: TERRITORY of NEW MEXICO ex rel., JESUS MA. SANDOVAL, Appellant v. GEORGE F. ALBRIGHT, Appellee.
Judges: Mills, C. J., concurs; Parker, and Pope, JJ., in the result.
Reporter: New Mexico Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 293–327

Head Matter:
[No. 1023.
September 13, 1904.]
TERRITORY of NEW MEXICO ex rel., JESUS MA. SANDOVAL, Appellant v. GEORGE F. ALBRIGHT, Appellee.
SYLLABUS.
Laws 1903, p. 38, c. 27, section 3, was a portion of an act dividing Bernalillo county so as to create the new county of Sandoval, and provided that on or before April 1, 1903, the county commissioners of the present county of Bernalillo should give notice of an election to be held on April 14, 1903, in the county as it would be constituted after division, to elect certain officers, including a county assessor, and that the officers so elected should be actual bona fide residents of Bernalillo county, as constituted after its division pursuant to the act. Section 16 (page 43) provided that the act should take effect on and after, April 14, 1903, at which date the officers elected at the special election should assume their respective duties. Laws 1903, p. 80, c. 49, amended the act quoted by appointing two persons county commissioners for Bernalillo county after division, and providing that they should appoint an assessor not later than April 10, 1903. Held, that an assessor appointed pursuant to this amendment on March 23, 1903, which was before the act dividing Bernalillo county went into effect, was not entitled to the office.
Appeal from the district court of Bernalillo county-before Benjamin S. Baker, Associate Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Edward L. Bartlett, Solicitor-General, and Niel B. Field for appellant.
Mistaken assumptions of law or fact by the Legislature are not binding upon the courts.
In the matter of John Hersom, 39 Maine 481-482; Postmaster General v. Early, 12 Wheat. 148; Van Norman v. Jackson, 45 Mich. 204; Byrd v. State, 57 Miss. 243, 34 Am. R. 440; Davis v. Delpit, 25 Miss. 445; The Amelia, 1 Cranch, 35.; S&ltens v. Tobias, 3 Paige 344; Lasher v. People, 183 111.. 226, 47 L. R. A. 802.
The law does not require a county assessor to be a resident of his county.
Territorial Organic Act, secs. 5 and 6; Compiled Laws of 1897, secs. 772 to 775, inclusive, which statutes are silent as to any residence qualifications.
The only statutes which attempt to prescribe residence qualifications are
Sections 660 and 664, Comp. Laws 1897.-See State ex rel. Gill v. The Supervisors of Milwaukee County, 21 Wis. 447-448; and see, also; State of Ohio, etc., v. Choate, 11 Ohio 513-514; State v. Swearengen, 12 Ga. 23; Com. v. Jones, 12 Pa. St. 370; State ex rel. O’Connell v. Nelson, 34 Pac. 562; Com. v. Sheriff, 4 S. & R. 276; Norwood v. Holden, 45 Minn. 316; State v. George, 23 Fla. 585; State v. Mess-more, 14 Wis. 177.
This legislation is void because it attempts to- deprive Sandoval of his office without due process of law.
Territory v. Ashenfelter, 4 N. M. 147-148.
The cases of Cunningham v. Conkling, 7 N. M'. 445 and Eldodt v. Territory, 10 N. M. 141 do not contain a single expression in conflict with the Ashenfelter case.
See Taylor and Marshall v. Beckham (No. 1), 178 U. S. 570-571; Kennard v. Louisiana ex rel. Morgan, 92 U. S. 481; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 205-206; Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S. 592-593 and 595; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135; Territory v. Van G-'asken, 6 Pac. 33, 36, 37, 39; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Or. 137.
The legislation is void because it denies to Sandoval the equal protection of the laws.
Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 31; Yick Wo. v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 369; Exparte Virginia, 100 U. S. 346; Pembing Mining Company v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 188; Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y., 92 U. S. 268; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 527; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 397; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 710; McPherson v. Baker, 146 U. S. 39.
The legislation is void because it is not a lawful exercise of the legislative power granted by Congress.
In re Attorney General, 2 New Mexico 59; National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U. S. 133; Lin-ford v. Ellison, 155 U. S. 506; Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall, 655; 1 Dill. Mun. Cor., sec. 328; People v. Daniels, 6 Utah 288; Linford v. Ellison, 7 Utah 166; Breninger v. Belvidere, 44 N. J. Law 352.
The legislation is void because it regulates county affairs, and grants special privileges and franchises in violation of the act of Congress.
Commonwealth v. Patton, 88 Pa. St. 259; Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 91 Pa. St. 133; Snowdens Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 422; Morrison v. Bachert, 112 Pa. St. 329; Frost y. Cherry, 122 Pa. St. 120-126; State v. Furgerson, 33 N. H. 131; Frey y. Michie, 68 Mich. 329; Cooley Con. Lira. (5 Ed.), 233.
W. B. Childers, for appellee.
Is that part of section 3, of the act of March 10, 1903, as amended by the act of March 12, 1903, appointing T. C. Gutierrez and Severo Sanchez county commissioners for the county of Bernalillo,, as the same was constituted after the creation of Sandoval county, and authorizing the board of commissioners to appoint an assessor for Bernalillo county, valid legislation?
8 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 815 and cases cited; Hussy v. Smith, 99 U. S. 20; McDowell v. U. S., 159 U. S. 610;. Nofire v. U. S., 161 U. S. 661; Ball v. U. S., 110 U. S. 125; Norton v. Shelley Co., 118 U. S. 125; Insurance Company v. Seaman, 80 Federal 357; Fox v. McDonald, 21 L. R. A. 537; State v. Baumbach, 12 Wis. 310; People v. Morrell, 21 Wend. 563, 576; Connor v. Mayor of New York, 5 N. Y. 285-295; The State and De Guenther v. Douglass, 26 Wis. 128, 7 Am. Rep. 87; State v. Davis 11 Mo. 129; People v. Haskell, 5 Cal. 357; Attorney General v. Squires, 11 Cal. 12; Note to Hoke v. Henderson, 25 Am. Dec. 703; Butler v. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 102, 116; Stewart v. Jefferson Police Jury, 116 U.- S. 133; Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 518; Crenshaw v. U. S., 131 U. S. 99; Long v. Mayor, 81 N. Y. 126; People v. Hurlbut, 21 Mich. 14, 9 Am. Rep. 103; Denver v. Hobart, 10 Nev. 30; Territory v. Yan Gaskin, 6 Pac. 30 (Mont).
As a general proposition, residence is necessary as a qualification for holding office.
State v. Hartshorn, 17 Ohio Rep. 135; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 426; Mank y. Lock, 70 Iowa 266, 30 N. W. 566; State v. Hixon, 27 Ark. 398; State v. Messmore, 14 Wis. 163; State y. Choate, 11 Ohio 511; Mechem on Public Officers, sec. 67; State v. McMillen, 23 Neb. 385, 36 N. W. 387.
The express power to create new counties carries with it the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution those powers.
United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358; McCullong y. Maryland, 4 Wheaton 316; 1 Roses Notes, 212 & 872; Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 77; Sprague v. Brown, 40 Wis. 612.
The power of the Territorial Legislature is full and complete, except so far as restricted by the acts of Congress.
Baca y. Perez, 8 N. M. 187; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 128; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheaton 213; Trustees of Vincennes University, 14 How. 268; 7 Roses Notes, 732; Miners Bank v. Iowa, 12 Howard 7.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
This is a proceeding by information in the na Lure quo warranto, brought to try the title of the appellee George F. Albright, to the office of assessor of the county of Bernalillo. The information alleges that the relator Jesus Ma. Sandoval was duly elected assessor of Bernalillo county at the general election held on the fourth day of November, 1902; that within the time prescribed by law the relator duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office; that the relator has never resigned, vacated or abandoned the said office; that ever since his election and qualification he has continued to discharge the duties of the office, and that the term for which he was elected has not expired. The information further alleges, that on the twenty-third day of March, 1903, and while the relator was in lawful possession of, and in the discharge of the duties of said office, the respondent George F. Albright, without authority of law did unlawfully usurp the said office and take possession of the room assigned for the use of the assessor of Bernalillo county in the court house, and of the books, paper, and other insignia of said office; has unlawfully assumed to be the assessor of said county and by such unlawful usurpation and intrusion the respondent has become possessed of the emoluments, immunities and privileges thereof. The information further alleges that the respondent claims the office by virtue of a pretended appointment by the board of county commissioners of Bernalillo county which was pretended to be made under authority of an act of the legislative assembly of the Territory of New Mexico entitled “An act to create the county of Sandoval,” approved March 10, 1903, as amended by an act entitled “An act to create the county of Sandoval,” approved March 12th, 1903.
The information further alleges that said legislation was and is void, in so far as it attempted to authorize or empower the selection or appointment of any other person than the relator to the office of assessor of the said county, for the term or any part of the term for which said relator was elected by the people of Bernalillo county; that said legislation is in contravention of the Constitution of the United States and also the laws of Congress prohibiting special legislation regulating county affairs, and is not a rightful subject of legislation.
The acts of the Legislature, in so far as they are involved in this case, are sections 3 and 16, chapter 27, Laws of 1903, and chapter 49, Laws of 1903, and are as follows: Chapter 27 “Act creating Bandoval County.”
“Sec. 3. On or before tbe first day of April, 1903, tbe county commissioners of the present county of Bernalillo, shall give notice of an election to be held on the fourteenth day of April, 1903, within the county of Bernalillo as the same will be constituted after the passage of this act, for the election of two county commissioners one probate judge, and one assessor, to serve until their successors are elected and qualified at the next general election. Said officers so named in this section to be at the time of said election actual bona fide residents of the said county of Bernalillo as the same shall be constituted after the passage of this act. The returns of said election to be made as the returns of general elections are made.”
“Sec. 16. This act shall take effect and be in force on and after the fourteenth day of April, 1903, at which date or as .soon thereafter as qualified the first officers of said county elected at the special election of 1903 shall assume their respective duties, and the said county shall be fully established as a county in the Territory of New Mexico, and the provisions herein contained providing for a returning board and its action in calling the election and canvassing the votes, and the method of ascertaining the debt of Sandoval county, to Bernalillo county, shall take effect and be in force from and after the passage of this act.”
Chapter 49, amending above act.
“Section 1. That section 3 of the act to create the county of Sandoval, approved on March 10, 1903, be and the same is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
“Sec. 3. That T. C. Gutierrez, to fill the unexpired term of the second district, and Severo Sanchez, be and they hereby are appointed and constituted county commissioners for the county of Bernalillo, as the same is constituted after the creation of Sandoval county, and the said T. O. Gutierrez and Severo Sanchez shall qualify as said county commissioners on or before the fifth day of April, 1903, and shall together with the county commissioner now in office for the said county of Bernalillo, hold a meeting not later than the tenth day of April, 1903, and said three persons as a board of county commissioners for Bernalillo county shall appoint one assessor and one probate judge for the said county of Bernalillo to serve until their successors are elected and qualified at the next general election.”
“Sec. 2. On or before thirty days after said board of county commissioners of Bernalillo county has duly qualified as such commissioners, they shall assemble as a board of county commissioners and shall divide said county of Bernalillo into county commissioners districts.”
“Sec. 3. This act shall be in force and take effect from and after its passage.”
To this information a demurrer was filed and overruled. Respondent then filed answer, in which it is admitted that the relator was duly elected for the term of two years, and duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such assessor, as alleged in the information; but denies that the relator was the only person qualified to hold the said office, and denies also that the office did not become vacant, alleging that the office became vacant March 10, 1903, the date upon which the act was approved creating Sandoval county, and that the relator was at the time of filing the information, and had been for a long time previous thereto a resident of that portion of Bernalillo county incorporated into Sandoval county by the act of March 10, 1903, and was disqualified from holding the office of assessor of Bernalillo county. The answer avers that the respondent Albright was duly appointed under the provisions of the act creating Sandoval county and the act amendatory thereof, and that he was duly qualified and lawfully entered upon and continued to discharge his duties as such assessor. The answer further denies that the acts of the Legislature are void; that they are in contravention of the Constitution or laws of the United States; that the same are special legislation prohibited by the acts of Congress, or that the same are not rightful subjects of legislation as set forth in the information.
A demurrer was filed to the answer, which was by the court overruled and judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT.
McFIE, J.
In deciding this case in the court below, the learned judge who tried the cause, held that, section 3 of chapter 27, Laws of 1903, and section 1, chapter 19, Laws of 1903, in effect, declared the office of assessor of Bernalillo county vacant. In construing these sections the court arrived at the conclusion, that it was the intention of the Legislature to declare that office vacant and therefore, although those sections do not contain a declaration to that effect, the court was of the opinion that those sections should be given, the effect of such a declaration. We cannot concur with the trial court in this conclusion.
The facts admitted by the pleadings are, that the relator Jesus Ma. Sandoval, was elected by the people of Bernalillo county at a general election held on the fourth day of November, 1902, to the office of assessor of the county; that he duly qualified on the first day of January, 1903, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office; that the term for which he was elected was two years from the date of his qualification, and that he did not resign, vacate or abandon the office voluntarily. It must be 'conceded therefore that Mr Sandoval was still the assessor of that county, unless the Legislature by the acts referred to declared the office vacant in express terms or clearly intended so to declara That the Legislature did not so declare in express terms, will not be denied, therefore we must examine the legislation involved with a view of ascertaining what the. intention of the Legislature was, in relation to the office of assessor of Bernalillo county, that being the only office directly involved in the case.
Chapter 27, Laws of 1903, is an act for the creation of, and government of the new county of Sandoval. It is not reasonable to take the view, that by such legislation it was the intention of the Legislature to deprive officers, elected by the people of the old county of offices held by them, and against their will and consent, unless such legislation necessarily has the effect of vacating such offices. The old county does not become a new county by the withdrawal of some of its territory; its organization remains the same, and only such changes can, of right, be made, as necessarily result from the formation of the new county. In such case, legislation relating to those holding office in the old county, should not be given the effect of declaring such office vacant, unless the intention to do so is manifest. Nothing should be left to the realm of doubt or inference, for, as was said in the case of Territory v. Ashenfelter, 4 N. M. 147, removal from office "deprives the possessor of a valuable private right."
Section 3, chapter 27, simply provides for the election by the people of two county commissioners, one probate judge-and one assessor for the county of Bernalillo, as the same will be constituted after the taking effect of the act creating Sandoval county, and further provides for the giving of notice for such election and how the returns shall be made. There is not one word in that section declaring those offices vacant, nor is there such in the entire chapter, for that matter. This omission is very significant, inasmuch as it clearly indicates that the Legislature was acting upon the assumption and theory that the creation of the new county of Sandoval necessarily created a vacancy in the offices of all such officers of the old county as resided within the geographical limits of the new county. This seems to be a much more reasonable interpretation of the act, than that the Legislature intended to single out certain officers and declare their offices vacant in the midst of their terms, without any reason being assigned, as an exercise of a purely arbitrary power. In support of the construction given this act by the learned judge who tried the cause, reference was made to the case of Territory v. Van Gaskin, 6 Pac. 30. In this case the Supreme Court of Montana sustained a legislative act making appointments to fill vacancies, but by reference to- the act under consideration in that case, it will be found, that the act in terms declared the offices of the former commissioners vacant and then proceeded to fill the vacancies. The act was as follows:
"That the offices of county commissioners of the county of Custer be, and the said offices are, hereby declared to be vacant, and no official duty shall be performed by the persons constituting the present board of county commissioners, except to make reports . . . and that William Van Caskin, George M'. Miles and Thomas J. Ryan are hereby appointed commissioners of Custer county."
The Legislature of Montana first declared the offices vacant, and then filled them by direct appointments., The Legislature of this Territory, however, did not declare the office of assessor of the old county vacant, but provided in one act for the election by the people of an assessor, and by a subsequent act, two days later, that the county commissioners should appoint an assessor for Bernalillo county. It is difficult to account for the failure of the Legislature to declare a vacancy in the office of assessor, except upon the theory that the Legislature was of the opinion that the holder of the office resided in the new county, and that the passage of the act creating the new county, rendered the assessor of Bernalillo county ineligible to hold the office to which he had been elected. That this was the view taken by coun sel for the respondent when the answer , was prepared, appears from the following paragraph of the answer:
"Further answering, this respondent alleges that by virtue of an act entitled 'An act to create the county of Sandoval,' approved March 10, 1903, there was created the county of Sandoval in the Territory of New Mexico', and that the said relator at the time of the creation of said county of Sandoval was and has been for a long time and many years previous thereto', a resident of the portion of Bernalillo county which was incorporated into and made the county of Sandoval, and that by virtue of the passage of said act creating the county of Sandoval, the said relator became and was and still is a resident of the said county of Sandoval and not of the county of Bernalillo, and, therefore, the said relator ceased to be upon the passage of said act a resident of the county of Bernalillo and was disqualified from exercising the duties of the office of assessor of the said county of Bernalillo to which he had' therefore been elected."
If then, the Legislature did not intend to declare a vacancy but only intended to provide an officer to fill a vacancy believed to exist as a necessary result of the passage of the act creating Sandoval county upon the theory that residence in the new county disqualified the assessor from continuing to hold his office, the effect is the same as if the Legislature had no power to declare or fill a vacancy. It does not,seem necessary or profitable in this case, to consider the question of the power of the Legislature, for the reason, that, however adequate the power of the Legislature might be, if the Legislature did not see fit, nor intend, to exercise the power to declare the office of assessor of Bernalillo county vacant by the legislation enacted the legal right of the incumbent elected by the people of the county is not affected by the legislation and no vacancy existed, to be filled either by election or appointment.. Providing for the election or appointment of a successor for a legally qualified in cumbent of an office is of no effect whatever so far as the incumbent is concerned prior to resignation, abandoment or expiration of the term for which he was elected neither of which occurred in this case, as is admitted by the pleadings. Respondent's counsel insists however, that because the relator, Sandoval, resided within the geographical limits of Sandoval county and was not a resident of Bernalillo county wherein he was elected, that the legal effect of the enactment of the law creating Sandoval county, was to disqualify him for holding the'office to which he had been elected in Bernalillo county, and that the passage of that act ipso facto created a vacancy in the office for which a successor was provided. In our opinion, this position is not well taken either as to the disqualification of Sandoval or the creation of a vacancy in the office of assessor held by him, at the time the laws referred to were enacted. An examination of our statutes fails to dsiclose any provision requiring residence in the county as a qualification for holding the office of assessor. In section 5 of the organic act, it is provided, that members of the council and house of representatives shall reside in their respective districts, and section 6 provides:
"And be it enacted that every free, white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years who shall have been a resident of said Territory at the time of the passage of this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters and of holding office, at all subsequent elections shall be such as shall be prescribed by the legislative assembly."
The Legislature is, by this section, clothed with power to create the office of county assessor, and prescribe as one of his qualifications for office, that he shall reside in the county for which he is elected to serve. The office of county assessor in New Mexico was created by act of 1884. Section 772 to 775 inclusive, Compiled Laws of 1897, appear to embrace all the provisions of our laws in regard to that office, and the qualifications, manner of selection and tenure of that officer, except as to the .filling of vacancies. There is no residence qualification provided for. Section 664, Compiled Laws of 1897, provides for the filling of vacancies in county offices, except that of county commissioners, and does provide, that in filling such vacancies the person appointed shall be a resident of the county. The manner of filling vacancies in county offices, was changed by chapter 2, Laws of 1901, the power being vested in the Governor, but this act does not include a residence qualification. Section 3, chapter 27, also provides that the officers to be elected shall reside in the county of Bernalillo, but chapter 49 does not so provide.
At the time the legislation in question was enacted, there was no statutory provision for a residence qualification applicable to the office of county assessor, and the- court should not engraft upon the statute by construction, a qualification which the Legislature, with full power to act, has seen fit to omit.
We are thus logically led to the conclusion that, even if it was admitted that Sandoval had been for years and was still residing in what would become Sandoval county when the act took effect, that fact would neither disqualify Sandoval from holding his office nor have the effect of rendering the office vacant. The Legislature acted upon a mistaken view of the law, the result of which was to provide for the election of an officer to an office not vacant, but which, on the contrary, was in the possession of a legally elected and qualified incumbent.
In the case of Postmaster General v. Eai'ly, 12 Wheat. 148, Chief Justice Marshall in delivering the opinion of the court said :
"It is true that the language of the section indicates the opinion that jurisdiction existed in the circuit courts rather than intention to give it; and a mistaken opinion of the Legislature concerning the law does not make law."
In the matter of John Herson, 39 Maine 481, the court said:
"It is said that the intention of the Legislature ta confer such a jurisdiction is clearly ascertainable from the provisions of the act, and that such intention should be made effectual. The intention of a legislative body is by the law regarded as a rule for a court to determine what construction the language which the Legislature has used should receive. But no rule of construction is known, or admitted, by which a clearly perceived defect, or omission in legislation to accomplish an important purpose in criminal law, has been, or can be supplied by inferring it from language used for another purpose not suited nor intended to supply that defect. Even in the construction of wills, in which the intention of the testator is to be pre-eminently the guide of the court, that intention can not, however clearly discoverable, be made effectual, if there be found in the will no language used by which the object can be accomplished."
In District of Columbia v. Hotton, 143 U. S. 27, the court said:
"It is contended, however, that by the act of January 31, 1883 (22 Stat. 412, c. 41; Sup. to Rev. Stat. (2 Ed.) 397), Congress recognized said section 354 as a still subsisting law, and that that consideration should compel a reversal of the judgment below. We are not impressed with this contention.
"But even if Congress had supposed that that section was still the law, when as a matter of fact, it had been repealed, it would make no difference in this consideration."
So in this case, we find no language in the act which can reasonably be held to declare a vacancy in the office of assessor of Bernalillo county, nor does the mistaken opinion of the Legislature as to the legal effect of the passage of the act creating Sandoval county create such vacancy, nor render Sandoval ineligible to hold the office.
Chapter 49, Laws of 1903, became a law March 13, 1903, or two days after the approval of chapter 27. This latter act amends section 3 of chapter 27 by direct appointment of T. C. Gutierrez and Severo Sanchez county commissioners of Bernalillo county and provides that when qualified, the board shall appoint an assessor and a probate judge for Bernalillo county. Section 2 provides for the division of Bernalillo county into commissioner districts. There is no provision in this act declaring the office of assessor of the old county vacant, but simply for the appointment of an assessor. All that had been said, therefore, concerning section 3, chapter 27, is equally applicable to this amendatory act. The method of selecting an assessor was changed from an election by the people to appointment by the board of county commissioners. If the people had no legal right to elect an assessor for that county, the board of county commissioners had no legal right to appoint, and if such appointment was made, there being no vacancy, the appointment was of no legal effect, as the former incumbent, Sandoval, had a superior title to the office by reason of his election, qualification, possession of the office, and the fact that his term had not expired.
Where districts or counties are divided by legislative enactment, officers required to reside in the distinct or county in which they were elected, have a right to retain their offices by establishing their residence so as to remain in the old county, and a reasonable time allowed them to do so, even after the taking effect of the act.
In the State of Ohio, article 3, section 3, of the Constitution provided that:
"There shall be appointed in each county, not more than three nor less than two associate judges, who during their continuance in office, shall reside therein."
In the case of State of Ohio etc. v. Choate, 11 Ohio 513, the question of the effect of county division upon the tenure of office of these judges was under consideration, and in deciding the case the court said:
"It is, however, alleged that this rule will enable the Legislature at any time, by a general law, to- oust from office without the form of impeachment and in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, many associate judges, and any president judge of this State, by changing the limits of the counties and of' the circuits in which they severally reside, so as to place their residence in some other county or circuit. Arguments of this nature, which assume the possibility that a coordinate branch of government will wantonly violate its plain duty, ought to be held of little weight in a court of justice where the legal presumption obtains that every legal functionary will faithfully observe the obligations of duty imposed upon him by his oath of office. The general assembly, if it should ever attempt to violate a measure, as the argument supposes, could not effectually accomplish the object. The judges would in all cases, be able to defeat the scheme by a seasonable removal within the newly-prescribed limits' of his county or circuit.
"So, in this case, had Choate preferred to retain his office, he could have changed his residence after the passage of the act attaching Milan to the county of Erie. This he neglected to do at the time; neglected to do when the special court was called requiring nis official attendance; neglected to do so at the May term of the court, and still neglected up to the second day of August."
In the case of Norwood v. Holden, 45 Minn. 313, the court said:
"It seems that it was assumed that if the relators had, by reason of the redistricting, become disqualified from talcing their seats on the board in January, this created vacancies which the chairman of the boards of town supervisors were authorized to fill. But this was a mistake, for it would not be one of the events the happening of which would create a vacancy, under the provisions of Gen. St. 1878, chap. 9, sec. 2."
In Minnesota at the time this case was decided, the statute provided that a commissioner "shall, at the time of his election be a resident of said district, and shall reside therein during his continuance in office."
The court held that changing the boundaries of a district after election did not have the effect of disqualifying the officer. State ex rel. O'Connel v. Nelson, 34 Pac. 562; State v. Swearengen, 12 Ga. 23; State v. George, 23 Fla. 585.
It is alleged in the information, and admitted in the answer, that the respondent, was appointed on the twenty-third day of March, 1903, and that he demanded and took possession of the office upon the same day. Section 16 of the act creating Sandoval county provides that the act shall not take effect until the fourteenth day of April, 1903. Therefore, at the time the respondent was appointed and attempted to take possession of the office, the county of Bernalillo- was in the same condition as when the relator was elected, and the county of Sandoval was not in existence. There had been no change of boundaries, and even if a residence qualification existed, Sandoval resided in the county for which he was elected. Prior to the taking effect of the act creating the new county — thus changing the boundaries of the old — it is untenable to contend that a vacancy existed by reason of the act creating the new county, and that Sandoval was thereby disqualified from holding the office of assessor in Bernalillo county to which he had been elected.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appointment of the respondent, prior to the taking effect of the act creating the county of Sandoval was unauthorized and of no effect, even if it were true that the creation of the new county, ipso facto, vacated the offices of all those officers of the old county residing within the boundaries of the new county when created. No vacancy existed in the office of assessor of Bernalillo county, the relator's title to that office remained unimpaired and the attempt of the respondent to take possession of the office on the twenty-third of March, 1903, or about twenty days prior to the taking effect of the -act creating the new county, was without warrant of law and was a usurpation in law as against the superior title of the relator who was the rightful incumbent and in the lawful possession of the office.
Section 3 of the act creating Sandoval county, provides for the election of an assessor and three other -officers by a vote-of the people of Bernalillo- county as the same will be constituted after the new county is -created, but by the terms of the act this election was to be held on the fourteenth day of April, 1903, the date upon which the act took effect. It is clear, that at the time this act was passed the Legislature understood that no vacancy would exist in the office of assessor of the old county prior to- the taking effect of the act creating the new county. It is somewhat strange, to say the least, to find the same Legislature, two days later, passing an amendatory act (chap. 19, Laws of 1903), providing for the appointment of an assessor for Bernalillo county by the board of county commissioners thereof on the tenth day of April, 1903, four days prior to the division of that county. To sustain this legislation' upon which the appellee relies, it is necessary to hold that the power to remove and appoint county -officers, is vested exclusively in the Legislature, unlimited by act of Congress.
Whatever may have been the power of the Legislature, upon this subject, prior thereto, since the enactment of the act of Congress approved July 30, 1886, and the act amendatory thereof, approved July 19, 1888, express limitations have been placed upon the power of the Legislature to regulate county affairs, which in our opinion renders the position above stated unmaintainable in this action. We do not deem a discussion of this question necessary to a decision of. this case, and as it will necessarily be more fully considered in the decision of the case of the Territory on the relation of Thomas J. Curran et al. v. Thomas C. Gutierrez and Severo' Sanchez, which is a companion case involving the validity of the same acts of the Legislature under consideration in the present case, we will refrain from any further reference to the subject here.
From the views above expressed it follows that the demurrer to the answer should have been sustained in the court below, and that the court erred in rendering judgment quashing the quo warranto proceedings and dismissing the cause.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the cause and proceed in accordance with the views expressed herein.
Mills, C. J., concurs; Parker, and Pope, JJ., in the result.
Baker, A. J., having heard the case below, took no part in this decision but files herewith reasons in support of decision below. Mann, A. J., not having heard the argument in this court, did not participate in this decision.