Commonwealth v. Athearn
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
At the last July adjournment in Suffolk, B. Whitman filed a motion for a rule of Court against the respondent to show cause why an information, in the nature of a quo warranta, should not be awarded against him for claiming to hold the office of town clerk of Tisbury, in Dukes county.
Read the full summary
At the last July adjournment in Suffolk, B. Whitman filed a motion for a rule of Court against the respondent to show cause why an information, in the nature of a quo warranta, should not be awarded against him for claiming to hold the office of town clerk of Tisbury, in Dukes county. The Court granted a rule, de bene esse, returnable at this term. * And now the Chief Justice suggested to Whitman, [ * 286 ] that since granting the rule to show cause, the Court had considered the subject more fully, and doubted whether, from the impracticability of giving a remedy in the case, an information…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
I should not be for granting an information in any case, where the judgment of the Court upon the information can have no effect. The officer may be liable to a fine, in case judgment of a motion be rendered, but not otherwise, as I now recollect When the information comes to a hearing, this man’s tenure in the office he claims will have expired. We could not then pass a judgment of removal. Upon this ground I am against granting the information.
* Sewall, J.
I consider this rather as a proceeding in rem, to obtain a specific remedy, than as a mode by which the respondent is to be punished. But…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Attorney General v. City of MethuenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- People ex rel. Speed v. HartwellMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
- People v. RichardsonNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Attorney General v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- New England Mutual Life Insurance v. PhillipsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.