Polk v. State
Supreme Court of Missouri
Points and citations of .authorities, made by JFrusten Polk, attorney for plaintiff in error. 1. The city attorney is a creature of the corporate authorities — vide City Ordinances, p. 113. If so, he may be displaced by them', for the. same power that creates may destroy.
Read the full summary
Points and citations of .authorities, made by JFrusten Polk, attorney for plaintiff in error. 1. The city attorney is a creature of the corporate authorities — vide City Ordinances, p. 113. If so, he may be displaced by them', for the. same power that creates may destroy. For the regulations therefore, governing the action of the authorities of the city in regard to the office, we are not obliged to look to the charter, when that office is not created in the charter. 2. But the charter does authorise the removal of city attorney — see Ordinances, p. 61; and the Mayor and Board of Aldermen did…
1Opinion of the Court
Statement of the case made, and opinion delivered by
McGirk, Judge.
This proceeding in the circuit court of St. Louis county, was a quo warranto, in the nature of an information at the relation of A. W. Manning. The information shows, that sometime in 1836, A. W. Manning was by the Mayor and Aldermen of the city, of St. Louis, appointed city attorney for the corporation; and that after-wards, the Board turned said Manning out of said office unlawfully, and put in his place Mr. Polk, the plaintiff in error. In the court below, the plaintiff in this court pleaded that the said Manning was…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Pierce v. ManningSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
- State v. DimmickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Smith v. GillettIllinois Supreme Court · 1869
- State v. HardySupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- Taylor v. RussellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1844
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.