People ex rel. Stupp v. City of Auburn

Nathan Kent is entitled to hold the office of recorder; James W. Hart, the office of city judge; and William S. Elder,

Prior to 1896 the charter election in the city of Auburn was held in March of each year, and the terms of office of the city officers commenced on the Monday following such election. Sections 6, 17, c. 53, pp. 73, 75, Laws 1879. Lhe terms of office of the recorder, city judge, and justice of the peace were four years. Section 5. In 1896 a change in the time of holding the charter election was made, from spring to fall, and the terms of office were to commence on the 1st day of January thereafter. Sections 6 and 17, as amended by chapter 520, p. 641, Laws-1896. The terms of these offices in question were left the same as before section 5 of the act of 1896. These changes rendered some specific provisions necessary for the commencement of this new order of things. Accordingly section 6 of the act of 1896 provided that the first charter election under this amended act should take place in November, 1896, and section 12 provided that all elective officers of the city in office when the act took effect should hold office until the expiration of the terms for which they had been elected, respectively, and until their successors should be elected and qualified. The same section provided that at the charter election held under the provisions of the act in November, 1898, there should be elected a recorder, city judge, and justice of the peace, whose terms of office should commence in March, 1899, upon the expiration of the terms of the respective officers whom they were elected to succeed, and should terminate January 1, 1904. At the charter election held in November, 1898, under this act of 1896, Kent, Hart, and Elder were elected to these offices, respectively; and, under the express and literal provisions of section 12, their terms of office expire January 1,1904. While the general provision as to their terms of these offices was four years, manifestly the first term under the act, when the change for the time of the charter election and for the commencement of the terms was being made, could not be just four years, but must be either less or more than four years. If such first terms were made to terminate January, 1903, they would be about three years nine months. If they were made to terminate January, 1904, they would be about four years nine months. The Legislature saw fit to make the terms more, instead of less, than four years. This provision was not inconsistent with the' general one in section 5 making the terms of these offices four years, 'nor was any construction; given to the provisions of section 12 by the act of 1899, p. 749, c. 348, when the provision of section 5 of the act of 1896 as to the terms of these offices

The act of 1896 is not obnoxious to article 3, § 16, of the state Constitution, which provides that private or local bills shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. The act of 1896 related wholly to a revision of the charter of the city of Auburn. The title expressed this subject, and it was unnecessary that it should contain anything further, to cover all that the act contained. What followed was merely explanatory, and was not contradictory or misleading. It is well settled that, “where the title of a local law expresses a general purpose or object, all matters fairly or reasonably connected therewith, and all measures which will or may facilitate the accomplishment of such purpose or object, are properly incorporated into the act, and are germane to the title.” People ex rel. Village of Brockport v. Sutphin, 166 N. Y. 163 , 172, 59 N. E. 770 , and cases therein referred to.

These city officers could not be elected in November, 1902, if their terms did not commence until January, 1904. The statute gave the city clerk no power to determine the year in which their election should take place, nor had he any such power in the absence of statutory provision relating thereto. His only duty was to state in his notice the officers to be elected at any election as provided by law. An incorrect statement by him would have no effect whatever in rendering an election valid which the law did not authorize. Section 4 of article 1 of the Public Officers Law (Laws 1892, p. 1657, c. 681) provides that “the term of office of an elective officer, unless elected to fill a vacancy, shall commence on the first day of January next after his election, if the commencement thereof be not otherwise fixed by law.” When the commencement of the term is fixed by law, it seems to follow that the election to the office should take place at the last election held before the time such term commences. Any other conclusion would be unreasonable, and would lead to serious results. If

It is suggested that if a mistake was made as to the year in which these officers were to be elected, and the mistake was not discovered until the election was over and the result declared, the election should still be regarded as valid, though the terms of office did not commence until more than a year after the election, and that the incumbents, Kent, Hart, and Elder, should be held to be estopped from alleging the invalidity of the election in 1902, and to have waived their right to hold their offices after January 1, 1903. We cannot concur in such a view. We do not think the election of Stupp, Drummond, and Wheelan in November, 1902, can be regarded as valid, because of mistake, estoppel, waiver, or for any other reason. The present incumbents hold their offices until January 1, 1904. Their successors must be elected at the election in November, 1903. It is important that there should be no further doubt as to the persons legally entitled to hold these judicial offices. There should be an election of officers this year to fill these offices, about which there can be no further controversy.

Judgment upon the submission should be ordered in accordance with the views hereinbefore expressed; the form of the order to be settled before Justice WILLIAMS on ten days’ notice. No costs are asked for in the submission, and none will, therefore, be allowed. All concur.