JACK
v.
UTAH TERRITORY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jack appealed his conviction for usurping the office of territorial treasurer of Utah Territory, claiming he had been duly elected and commissioned to the position. The Supreme Court affirmed the territorial court's judgment against Jack, applying the same legal principles it had established in the related case of Clayton v. Utah Territory involving a similar disputed territorial office.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court.
This-case, which is an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah, differs from the preceding case of Clayton against the same appellees, in the fact that Jack was charged with usurping and intruding into the office of territorial treasurer for the Territory of Utah, as Clayton ivas alleged to be an intruder into the office of auditor of public accounts. These two offices were created by the same statute of the Territory, at the same time, and the mode of election prescribed by that statute was changed at the same time by the same statute to an election by the people, and Jack claims to-have been elected treasurer at the. same general election in which Clayton was elected auditor; that he received the commission of the governor of the Territory, and that he has held the office ever since by reason of the fact that no other election had been held and no other person had been lawfully appointed to the office. The same principles govern this case as govern the other. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Ut-ah was based upon the same grounds, and for>the reasons given by us in that ease we affirm the judgment in this.
Affirmed.