Attorney General v. Foote
Wisconsin Supreme Court
INFORMATION FOR QÜO WARRANTO. The information in this case, by the attorney general, averred that the respondent had usurped and held the office of judge of the municipal court of the city arid county of Milwaukee, without legal election, appointment, or authority, &c.
Read the full summary
INFORMATION FOR QÜO WARRANTO. The information in this case, by the attorney general, averred that the respondent had usurped and held the office of judge of the municipal court of the city arid county of Milwaukee, without legal election, appointment, or authority, &c. Upon this, a summons was issued, on the 22d of August, 1859. On the 30th of January, 1860, the defendant filed his answer: 1. Denying, in general terms, the averments of the information, or non usurpavit. 2. That the “ act to establish a municipal court in the city and county of Milwaukee,” approved March 18, 1859, was duly…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Dixon, C. J.
The demurrer of the attorney general to the answer of the respondent, must be sustained. The first separate defense set up in the answer, that the respondent has not usurped, &c., is bad. It does not answer by what warrant or authority he claims title to the office, which the writ calls upon him to show. He must either justify or disclaim; and not guilty, or non usurpavit, are bad answers. 4 Cowen, 118 ; 15 John., 338.
The defense secondly set up is also bad; for although it is alleged that chapter 199 of the local laws of 1859, entitled, “An Act to establish a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re of BoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
- Suckley v. FurseNew York Supreme Court · 1818
3Cited by7 opinions
- Brooks v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1911
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. MessmoreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- In re BurkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
- State ex rel. Richter v. ChadbourneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
- State ex rel. Mengel v. SteberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.