Legal Opinion

State ex informatione Crow v. Lund

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided February 19, 1902PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Eon. E. P. Gates, Judge. (1) The primary question in a quo warranto proceeding is whether the respondent is entitled to hold the office. This right can only be determined by the court by the respondent pleading the facts in the case.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Eon. E. P. Gates, Judge. (1) The primary question in a quo warranto proceeding is whether the respondent is entitled to hold the office. This right can only be determined by the court by the respondent pleading the facts in the case. Therefore, facts, and not evidence or conclusions of law, must be distinctly stated. 79 Mo. 272. It is no answer to an information in a quo warranto proceeding to state that no one else or some one else is not entitled to the office. The respondent must show that he is rightfully in office. 15 111. 213. And, therefore, it has…

1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, C. J.

This proceeding was begun ex-officio by the Attorney-General in the circuit court of Jackson county, Missouri, to oust respondent, Hans Lund from the office of city comptroller of Kansas City, Missouri. There was judgment for respondent from which plaintiff appeals.

Eespondent was on the seventeenth day of April, 1899, by and with the advice and consent of the Common Council of Kansas City, Missouri, appointed by its then mayor, J ames M. Jones, city comptroller for said city. The appointment was made under section 14, article 4, of the charter of the city which is as follows:

“There shall be a…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Carson v. HarrisonIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Badger v. United States Ex Rel. BollesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. People ex rel. Stratton v. OultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  4. Wheeling v. BlackWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Robb v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1886

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Piedmont Cotton Mills v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  2. State Ex Rel. Voss v. DavisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1967
  3. Kirby v. NolteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1942
  4. State ex inf. Major v. AmickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
  5. Gayman, County Treasurer v. MullenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API