Reader v. Farriss
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from District Court, McClain County; W. M. Bowles, Assigned Judge. Action in the nature of quo warranto by Frank Far-riss against Mark Eeader. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1DissentSharp, J.
(dissenting). 'With the rule that quo warranto, or a proceeding in the nature thereof, lies only against one who is in the possession and user of the office, and not against one who merely lays claim to the office, or who has never been admitted thereto, I have no disposition to take issue. By section 4919, Rev. Laws 1910, the writ of quo warranto and proceedings by information in the nature of quo warranto are abolished, but it is there provided that the remedies theretofore obtainable in those forms may be had by a civil action, and, as held in Newhouse v. Alexander, 27 Okla. 46, 110 Pac.…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- State v. GleasonSupreme Court of Florida · 1868
- State ex rel. Wood v. BakerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- State ex rel. Rose v. JobSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Atkinson v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
- Prince v. GosnellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.