Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Smith v. Askew

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1886PublishedCited by 35 opinions

PETITION for Quo Waranto. Offices are created for the benefit of the people, and not for the advantage of the incumbent. No one can have any-vested right to an office. {SO Ark., 566.) The intention of the constitution is to fix the term of office, and not that of any particular officer.

Read the full summary

PETITION for Quo Waranto. Offices are created for the benefit of the people, and not for the advantage of the incumbent. No one can have any-vested right to an office. {SO Ark., 566.) The intention of the constitution is to fix the term of office, and not that of any particular officer. Under the constitution of 1868, which contained similar provisions to the present one, it was held that the legislature had the power to abolish the office of a judge, though the constitution declared that the general assembly should not interfere with the term of office of any judge. SO Ark., 566. When the…

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

The relator invokes our original jurisdiction, under sec. 5, of article 7, Constitution 1874, to determine by what authority Benjamin E. Askew assumes to exercise the functions of judge of the Thirteenth judicial circuit.

His petition sets forth that under an act of the general assembly, entitled “ an act to create the Thirteenth judicial circuit, and fixing the times of holding the courts,” approved February 27, 1883, defendant was elected judge of the circuit court in that circuit at an election held on the first Monday in June, 1883; that he qualified and has continued to act as circuit…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Stocking v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1855
  2. People Ex Rel. Fowler v. BullNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  3. State ex rel. Henderson v. County CourtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
  4. Gormley v. TaylorSupreme Court of Georgia · 1871
  5. State ex rel. Attorney General v. MessmoreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. State v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
  2. Merwin v. FussellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
  3. Matheny v. Independence CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
  4. People Ex Rel. Snyder v. . HylanNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
  5. Massenburg v. CommissionersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API