State ex rel. Attorney General v. Mead
Supreme Court of Missouri
Original Quo Warranto. The respondent, Mead, having been appointed by the county court of Livingston county to fill a vacancy in the office of recorder of deeds of that county, the attorney general instituted this proceeding to vacate the appointment.
1Opinion of the Court
Sherwood, O. J.
The question for determination in this case is whether the law under which the respondent claims his appointment was repealed, the former law (G. S., p. 162, § 28) providing that the county -court should temporarily fill a vacancy in the office of recorder of deeds, while the law relied on by relator, and which is alleged to *268have gone into effect on the 1st day of November, 1879, provides that such and similar vacancies “ shall be filled by appointment by the governor.” (Rev. Stat. 1879, § 5527, p. 1085.) This law undoubtedly accomplished the repeal of the former one, if…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pacific Railroad v. GovernorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- City of St. Louis v. TiefelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
- Bradley v. WestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- City of Hannibal v. County of MarionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- State ex rel. Hixon v. SchofieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
3Cited by72 opinions
- Ewing v. HoblitzelleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Union Bank of Richmond v. Commissioners of OxfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- State v. BockstruckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Brown v. MorrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.