Case Name: People ex rel. Williams v. Reid
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1887-12
Citations: 11 Colo. 141
Docket Number: 
Parties: People ex rel. Williams v. Reid.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 141–142

Head Matter:
People ex rel. Williams v. Reid.
An appointment to fill a vacancy in the office of county treasurer, made by the vote of a county commissioner whose term of office expired at midnight the night before, is invalid.
Original proceeding in the nature of quo warranto.
By an act of legislature changing the beginning of the term of office of county treasurers a vacancy was caused, which the county commissioners were authorized to fill. One May, who was county commissioner, and whose term of office expired at midnight, January 9th, participated in the deliberations of the board next morning, and by his vote an appointment was made filling the vacancy. But in the afternoon the newly-elected commissioner qualified, and another appointment was made. Williams, the second appointee, brings this proceeding against Reid, the first appointee, who had possession and refused to surrender it.
Mr. S. P. Rose and Alvin Marsh, Attorney-General, for plaintiff.
Messrs. Markham and Dillon, for defendant.

Opinion:
Elbert, J.
By reference to the opinion of Justice Helm, delivered in this case {ante, p. 138), on issues made by the demurrer to the respondent's plea, it will be seen that the pleadings were regarded as presenting an issue of fact, namely, did- the newly-e'lected county commissioner, Ordway, duly qualify as such by filing his official bond, and by taking his oath of office, prior to the 10th of January, 1888. Upon this issue the proofs since taken and submitted are undisputed, and to the effect that Ordway duly qualified as county commissioner, under the law, in the preceding December. His successor having thus duly qualified, May's term of office expired at midnight on the 9th of January. He could- not, therefore, legally participate in the deliberations and proceedings of the board on the following day, the 10th of January, and the acts of the board, in so far as they depend upon his vote, were without validity. It follows that the alleged appointment of respondent to fill the vacancy in the office of county treasurer at the meeting of the board on the morning of the 10th, depending as it did on the vote of May, was without force or validity. The judgment must be for the relator.
Judgment for relator.