State ex rel. Hahn v. Minnesota Central Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
These were two proceedings in quo warranto, instituted in this court by the attorney general. Before answering, the respondent in each case moved to quash the writ for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the writ showed that the state had a plain, adequate, and complete remedy by civil action in the district court. The motions were denied. The respondents thereupon answered, and the cases were heard together upon demurrers to the answers.
Read the full summary
These were two proceedings in quo warranto, instituted in this court by the attorney general. Before answering, the respondent in each case moved to quash the writ for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the writ showed that the state had a plain, adequate, and complete remedy by civil action in the district court. The motions were denied. The respondents thereupon answered, and the cases were heard together upon demurrers to the answers. The facts appearing in the pleadings are substantially as follows: 1. In the Minnesota Central Case: This respondent acquired on March 6, 1863, by…
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
Upon the facts admitted on the face of the record, the attorney general applies for judgment dissolving these corporations, on the ground of non-user of their franchises, and a suspension of their business as railroad companies. The information shows, and the answers admit, that the respondents have heretofore sold and conveyed the lines of road authorized by their charter, and by them constructed thereunder, and for more than four years they have neither owned nor operated any railroad in this state. It further appears that they claim still to be corporations exercising certain other…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- TERRETT & OTHERS v. Taylor & OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- State v. Hartford & New Haven RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- People ex rel. Bishop v. Kingston & Middletown Turnpike Road Co.New York Supreme Court · 1840
- Mickles v. Rochester City BankNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
- Ward v. Sea InsuranceNew York Court of Chancery · 1838
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- State ex inf. Hadley v. Delmar Jockey ClubSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Eel River Railroad v. State ex rel. KistlerIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
- State v. Central Lumber Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
- Attorney General v. Superior & St. Croix RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.