State ex rel. Probstfield v. Sharp
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Quo warranto, the respondents being the directors of the “Moorhead'Independent School-District,” composed of townships 137,138, 139,140 and 141, of range 48, and fractional townships 137, 138, 139, 140 and 141, of range 49, all in Clay county; and the purpose of this proceeding being to try the validity of the proceedings by which these ten townships were formed into a single independent school-district, and organized as such. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
This is a proceeding by information, in the nature of quo warranto, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 63, § 1. It is not the action provided for in chapter 79 of said statutes, and the provisions of that chapter are not per se applicable to it. In the absence of any legislation or controlling considerations to the contrary, it follows that, as respects procedure, it is governed by common-law rules. The rule that the onus probandi is upon the respondent, (High on Ex. Rem. §§ 629, 712, and cases cited; 2 Dillon Mun. Cor. §§ 717, 722; 5 Wait’s Practice, 615; People v. Pease, 30 Barb. 588, 591,) therefore,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People ex rel. Smith v. PeaseNew York Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by14 opinions
- State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- State v. Port of TillamookOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Jordan v. BaileySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of DoverSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- State ex rel. Young v. Village of KentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.