State ex rel. Circuit Attorney v. County Court
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. I. The Circuit Attorney has no authority to proceed in the name of the State in this case. (State vs. Parkville and Grand River R. R. Co., 32 Mo., 196; Atty. Gen. vs. Utica Ins. Co., 2 Johns.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. I. The Circuit Attorney has no authority to proceed in the name of the State in this case. (State vs. Parkville and Grand River R. R. Co., 32 Mo., 196; Atty. Gen. vs. Utica Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch., 371; see also, People vs. Miner, 2 Lansing, 396.) In this last case, tne doctrine is fully reviewed, the cases of Davis & Palmer vs. The Mayor, &c., 2 Duer., 663, and of Doolittle vs. The Supervisors, 18 N. Y., 162, referred to by tlie counsel for the Respondent, are referred to, and tbe Court holds that in such a case as the one before the Court the State is not a…
1Dissent
Dissenting opinion of
Wagner, Judge.
Whether the State has the right to maintain this proceeding, at the instance of its law officers, is a question of great importance, and upon which I have grave doubts. It is obvious, I think, that the State, and by that term I mean the State in its corporate capacity and character, has no manner of interest in the litigation. Its rights are in no wise inju*387riously affected, and its interference can only be permitted on the ground that the Attorney General or Circuit Attorney, as the representatives of the State, is legally authorized to interfere, in all…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Doolittle v. . Supervisors of Broome CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Roosevelt v. . DraperNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- City of St. Louis v. TiefelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
- Brandon v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1861
- State v. MathewsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.