State ex rel. Taylor v. Guilbert
Ohio Supreme Court
Quo Warranto. By Ms petition the relator gives the court to be informed that by the act of the general assembly,, passed April 25, 1904, entitled “An act to impose a tax upon the right to succeed to or inherit properiy, ’ ’ it is made the duty of the auditor of state, defendant herein, to proceed immediately to cause to he prepared blank books and forms upon -which to make the necessary returns and reports to carry into effect and operation the provisions of such act, and to…
Read the full summary
Quo Warranto. By Ms petition the relator gives the court to be informed that by the act of the general assembly,, passed April 25, 1904, entitled “An act to impose a tax upon the right to succeed to or inherit properiy, ’ ’ it is made the duty of the auditor of state, defendant herein, to proceed immediately to cause to he prepared blank books and forms upon -which to make the necessary returns and reports to carry into effect and operation the provisions of such act, and to provide for the charging and collection of the tax as therein provided, which duty defendant is about to perform and…
1DissentPrice, J.
I cannot concar in the .above judgment for the following reasons:
■ 1. The prosecuting attorney is without authority do make the relation he has assumed, and therefore has no authority in law to institute and maintain this action. Such authority cannot be found in any statute defining his duties, nor is he permitted, under chapter 3, title 4 (Quo Warranto), Revised Statutes, to bring proceedings in quo warranto on •account of any fact stated in the petition.
2. Quo warranto is not the proper and legal remedy to be applied to the facts alleged. The title to the office held by the respondent is…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People ex rel. Farrington v. WhitcombIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- State ex rel. Spalding v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- State v. City of LyonsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- McDonald v. Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1892