Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Werts v. Rogers

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided February 15, 1894PublishedCited by 26 opinions

On quo warranto. This was an application for leave to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto against Robert Adrain and Maurice. A. Rogers, to inquire by what warrant they and each of them claimed to have, use and enjoy the office of president of the senate of New Jersey. Upon petition filed by George T. Werts, governor, an order to show cause was granted upon Robert Adrain and Maurice A. Rogers, and depositions were taken to be used on the return of the rule.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, Chief Justice.

This case has been placed before the court on a-rule to show cause why an information in the nature of a quo loctrranto should not "be issued against these respondents, each of whom claims, and to some extent has exercised, the office of president of the senate of New Jersey. Under this procedure evidence has been taken, and it thus appears that the twenty-one senators of the state have divided themselves into two bodies, that is to say, nine of the *615old members, who were styled in the argument “ hold-over members,” constituting…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Fritts v. KuhlSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1889

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Kadderly v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Ellingham v. DyeIndiana Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, Governor & Board of State CanvassersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
  4. In Re Application of LambNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
  5. Legislative Reapportionment v. General AssemblySupreme Court of Colorado · 1962

21 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