State ex rel. Brown v. Spitz
Supreme Court of Missouri
Quo Warranto. (1) The election held in 1892 was a valid election to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Granzhorn.
Read the full summary
Quo Warranto. (1) The election held in 1892 was a valid election to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Granzhorn. State v. Comrades, 45 Mo. 45; State ex rel. v. Manning, 84 Mo. 661; Morgan v. Com’rs, 24 Kan. 71; State ex rel-. v. Foster, 36 Kan. 504. (2) In all the states where the tenure of office is fixed for a term of years by the constitution or statutes, and there is no provision made, either by the constitution or statutes, that a person elected or appointed to fill a vacancy shall hold for the residue of term for which he is so elected or appointed — the uniform ruling of…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
This is a proceeding by an information in the nature of a quo warranto to test the right of *250Benjamin Spitz to exercise the duties of justice of the peace within and for the sixth district of Kaw township, in Jackson county, Missouri, under and by virtue of an election held therefor at the general election held in said township, in November, 1894.
In March, 1890, the county court of Jackson county, Missouri, divided Kaw township, of said county, into eight justice’s districts, pursuant to the requirements of section 6090 of the Revised Statutes of 1889. At the general election in 1890,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. RansonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- State ex rel. McGee v. GardnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- State ex rel. Withers v. StonestreetSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
3Cited by4 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Rosenthal v. SmileySupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Spaulding v. BradySupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- State ex rel. Walker v. PowlesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- State Ex Rel. Asotsky v. HicksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1940