Bowling v. Doyal
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Atkinson, Presiding Justice.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The Code § 64-201, declares: “The writ of quo warranto may issue to inquire into the right of any person to any public office the duties of which he is in fact discharging, but must be granted at the suit of some person either claiming the office or interested therein.” This language appears as § 3135 in the Code of 1863, and has been carried forward in each of the succeeding Codes.
Counsel for the plaintiff in error concedes that the respondent could not have been ousted at the time the suit was filed, but insists that, under…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Southern Railway Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Gurr v. GurrSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Holmes v. SikesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Sweat v. BarnhillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
- Center v. ArpSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.