State v. Simmons
Superior Court of Delaware
Mandamus (No. Nov. Term, 1900). The successive steps taken in the above stated case were as-follows; Petition filed Dec. 22d, 1900. Order for rule to show cause, signed by the Court, Dec., 22d, 1900. Rule issued Dec. 29th, 1900. Feb. 5, 1901, on motion of attorney for petitioner, rule for alternative writ granted, returnable February 23d, 1901. February 8th, 1901, alternative writ issued. February 23d, 1901, motion to quash alternative writ with ■reasons assigned, filed.
Read the full summary
Mandamus (No. Nov. Term, 1900). The successive steps taken in the above stated case were as-follows; Petition filed Dec. 22d, 1900. Order for rule to show cause, signed by the Court, Dec., 22d, 1900. Rule issued Dec. 29th, 1900. Feb. 5, 1901, on motion of attorney for petitioner, rule for alternative writ granted, returnable February 23d, 1901. February 8th, 1901, alternative writ issued. February 23d, 1901, motion to quash alternative writ with ■reasons assigned, filed. March 1st, A. D. 1901, on motion of Herbert H. Ward, attorney for petitioner, leave granted to amend original petition,…
1Opinion of the CourtLore, C. J.
This is a motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus issued in this case.
The twenty grounds set out in support of the motion may be ■summarized as follows:
1. That no proper demand has ever been made by the relator for the performance of the thing sought to be enforced by the writ.
2. Misjoinder of parties as relators.
3. That the writ is bad for duplicity.
4. That the writ itself is inconsistent, uncertain and the mandatory part thereof is not single.
5. That the relief sought has been lost by loches of the relators as to Monroe and Shipley streets.
The relief asked for and expressed in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Independent District v. RhodesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- People Ex Rel. v. . B'd Sup'rs of Ontario CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1881