State ex rel. Knittel v. Longfellow
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. William Zachriiz, Judge. (1) Mandamus is the appropriate remedy for the wrong complained of herein. State v. County Court, 41 Mo. 545; State y. Walbridge, 153 Mo. 494. (2) Under the-facts of this case and the law applicable thereto, a peremptory writ of mandamus should have been issued as prayed for. State v. St. Louis, 90 Mo. 19; State v. Brown, 57 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. William Zachriiz, Judge. (1) Mandamus is the appropriate remedy for the wrong complained of herein. State v. County Court, 41 Mo. 545; State y. Walbridge, 153 Mo. 494. (2) Under the-facts of this case and the law applicable thereto, a peremptory writ of mandamus should have been issued as prayed for. State v. St. Louis, 90 Mo. 19; State v. Brown, 57 Mo. App. 199; St. Louis v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559; Ex parte Neet,. 157 Mo. 527. (1) Eelator was not an officer, merely an assistant-or employee, having neither a definite term nor an annual salary,…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
— This is a mandamus proceeding commenced in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, July 17, 1901.
*366The material averments of the petition are that defendant, as commissioner of public buildings of the city of St. Louis, appointed relator to the office of building inspector on '.January 5, 1900, for a term of four years; that his appointment was approved by the mayor of said city; that he executed his official bond in the sum of five thousand dollars- for the faithful discharge of his duties as such inspector, which was duly approved by the mayor and city council, and that relator…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. LaughlinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Ex parte NeetSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
3Cited by3 opinions
- Magner v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- State ex rel. Bartraw v. LongfellowMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- State ex rel. Magner v. LongfellowMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902