State ex rel. Danforth v. Hunton
Supreme Court of Vermont
Information for a writ of quo warranto, charging the defendants with having usurped 'the office of directors of the Bank of White River, at Bethel, without any legal election, &c.
Read the full summary
Information for a writ of quo warranto, charging the defendants with having usurped 'the office of directors of the Bank of White River, at Bethel, without any legal election, &c. A question was made,-(after the reading of the information, and rule nisi requiring the defendants to show cause why such a writ should not issue, and the defendants’ answer, upon oath, to the several charges in the information,) which party was entitled to the open and close, in the proof and the argument: Bx the Court. The form of the issue, requiring the defendants to show cause, would seem to indicate, in form,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
The defendants are brought before this court upon a rule to show cause, &c., which was granted by the supreme court at their regular session in Bennington county; and no question has been raised in regard to the regularity of the proceeding, although it seems that in England, upon an information in the nature of a quo warranto, the attorney-general must proceed either by venire facias and distringas, or subpoena and attachment; and, in The People v. Richardson, 4 Cowen 100, it was held, in the state of New York, there was no necessity of…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Brooks v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1911
- State ex rel. Page v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1876
- State ex rel. Phelps v. JacksonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1907
- State ex rel. Frank v. SwangerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Haupt v. RogersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.