Haupt v. Rogers
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition for leave to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto. The respondents demurred thereto, assigning as grounds therefor that persons were improperly joined as petitioners having several distinct and separate interests and claims which could not be properly litigated in one proceeding, and that there were no facts set out in the petition which entitled the petitioners, in their own names, to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto.
Read the full summary
Petition for leave to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto. The respondents demurred thereto, assigning as grounds therefor that persons were improperly joined as petitioners having several distinct and separate interests and claims which could not be properly litigated in one proceeding, and that there were no facts set out in the petition which entitled the petitioners, in their own names, to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto. Knowlton, J. reserved the questions of law raised by the demurrer for the full court. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
We think that it must be regarded as settled in this Commonwealth, that an information in the nature of a quo warranto cannot be brought by private persons in their own names, except in cases authorized by statute, and that the only statutory provisions relating in terms to such an information are those contained in Pub. Sts. c. 186, §§ 17-25. This court has no authority to direct the Attorney General to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto. He is not an officer of the court, but an officer of the Commonwealth, and in the performance of his official duties he is not subject to…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Dunphy v. Traveller Newspaper Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Attorney General v. DrohanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Commonwealth v. Union Fire & Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- American Railway-Frog Co. v. HavenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Attorney General v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Attorney General v. City of MethuenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Longyear v. HardmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- State ex rel. Young v. Village of KentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Potomac Oil Co. v. DyeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.