People ex rel. Larke v. Crawford
Michigan Supreme Court
Information in. the nature of quo warranto. In this case, when it was called on for hearing, it was discovered that by a mutual misapprehension of counsel it was not in condition to be heard without first raising and disposing of an issue of fact. Some controversy having-arisen upon tbe formalities of tbe pleadings, the court gave the necessary instructions for forming the issues. The office in dispute was that of supervisor of the township of Rogers, in Presque Isle county.
1Per curiam
In cases of quo warranto, the respondent is required to disclaim or justify, and the plea is the first pleading that indicates the facts concerning which the controversy as to the right of office will arise. The information charges the respondent with intrusion into an office, and calls upon him to show by what right he has assumed to hold it. The respondent may deny that he holds, or claims to hold it. Such a plea is a disclaimer, and no controversy of fact can arise upon it beyond the simple question of his exercise of the office. If he does not disclaim he must justify, and by a plea of…
2Cited by6 opinions
- In re the Bonds of the Madera Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Brooks v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1911
- State ex rel. Attorney-General v. PhilipsSupreme Court of Florida · 1892
- Massey v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1902
- People ex rel. Attorney General v. BakerMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.