Price v. Harned
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Keohuh District Court. * ON the 24th of January, 1855, an act was passed, providing for the relocation of the county seat of Keokuk county. By this act, a vote was to be taken on the first Monday in August, 1855, in the several places of holding elections in said county, for the purpose of determining whether the county seat should be removed from Lancaster to Sigourney.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Keohuh District Court. * ON the 24th of January, 1855, an act was passed, providing for the relocation of the county seat of Keokuk county. By this act, a vote was to be taken on the first Monday in August, 1855, in the several places of holding elections in said county, for the purpose of determining whether the county seat should be removed from Lancaster to Sigourney. The vote was to be taken, and returned by the judges of the election, and when returned, was to be canvassed and entered by the county judge upon his election book, under the same rules and restrictions as in…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, C. J.
We bad occasion at tbe last term, in tbe •case of Chance v. Temple, as School Fund Commissioner, ante, 179, to examine tbe law regulating tbe writ of mandamus, and to lay down, quite fully, our views of tbe practice in ■relation thereto. This proceeding, under tbe rules there declared, is, in many respects, defective. Tbe order for tbe writ, and tbe writ itself, were issued in vacation, and not during tbe term of, and by tbe court, as such, Tbe proceeding is not carried on, in tbe name of tbe state. Tbe writ itself recites no part of tbe inducement, or that which must j ustify tbe command, as…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Van Houten v. County JudgeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1862
- Rummel v. DealySupreme Court of Iowa · 1900