People ex rel. Clay v. Stuart
Michigan Supreme Court
Case made from Kent.- (Montgomery, J.) Information in the nature of quo warranto to test the right of respondent to hold the office of prosecuting attorney. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
An information in the nature of a quo warranto was filed in the circuit court for the county of Kent by the relator against the respondent, charging that he had usurped, intruded into, and unlawfully held the ■office of prosecuting attorney of Kent county, to which the relator was entitled by virtue of an election held on November 2, 1886, at which he was elected prosecuting attorney of Kent county, and qualified, and entered upon the duties of the office until the usurpation of Stuart, on May 5, 1888.
The respondent filed an answer, in which he set forth that on February 7, 1888, one Israel…
2Cited by23 opinions
- In Re FredericksMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
- State ex rel. Wehe v. FrazierNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1921
- Matter of CarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Fuller v. EllisMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Skeen v. CraigUtah Supreme Court · 1906
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.