State ex rel. Davis v. Schmitz
Court of Appeals of Kansas
Appeal from the Livingston Circuit Court. — Hon. J. M. Davis, . Judge. We contend that the court erred in overruling appellants’ motion to quash the amended writ of mandamus, for the following reasons, to-wit: (1) Because said amended alternative writ had no force and was null and void. Because the same was not signed by the judge of the court nor by the clerk thereof, and was not attested by the seal of the court. Const.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Livingston Circuit Court. — Hon. J. M. Davis, . Judge. We contend that the court erred in overruling appellants’ motion to quash the amended writ of mandamus, for the following reasons, to-wit: (1) Because said amended alternative writ had no force and was null and void. Because the same was not signed by the judge of the court nor by the clerk thereof, and was not attested by the seal of the court. Const. Mo., art. 6, sec. 38. (2) Because the petition to the city council, asking for an election to be held in the city of Chillicothe under the local option act, was presented to…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
— This is a mandamus proceeding, begun in the Livingston circuit court by the relators, composing more than one-tenth of the qualified voters of the city of Chillicothe, by which it was sought to compel the respondents, mayor and counoilmen of said city, to order an election for the adoption (or rejection) of the local option law. To the alternative writ respondents Schmitz, Schruley and Way made return that they were willing to obey said writ and order said election, but respondents Craycroft, Lake and Mohrs have contested the same and filed motion to quash said writ, which, being overruled…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kamerick v. CastlemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- State ex rel. Maggard v. PondSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Carroll v. CampbellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887