Attorney General v. Adonai Shomo Corp.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Information in the nature of a quo warranta, filed August 3, 1894, by the Attorney General “ on relation of the inhabitants of Petersham,” praying that the defendant’s charter might be declared forfeited on the grounds of the non user and misuser of its franchise.
Read the full summary
Information in the nature of a quo warranta, filed August 3, 1894, by the Attorney General “ on relation of the inhabitants of Petersham,” praying that the defendant’s charter might be declared forfeited on the grounds of the non user and misuser of its franchise. The answer alleged, among other things, that the plaintiff, in his capacity of Attorney General, had no right to prosecute the information except in the name and on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and that he had no right or duty to proceed on the relation of the inhabitants of Petersham, in that they had no interest or…
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
If this information can be maintained for the purpose of declaring the charter of the defendant forfeited, it must be as an information in the nature of a quo warranta brought by the Attorney General in behalf of the Commonwealth. Such an information is a common law proceeding, and the pleadings and trial must conform to common law procedure. Attorney General v. Sullivan, 163 Mass. 446. The pleadings are not regulated by the provisions of Pub. Sts. c. 167. There are some indications in the pleadings that the information was regarded by the parties as an information in equity, but as no…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Folger v. Columbian InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Commonwealth v. Union Fire & Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Attorney General v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Commonwealth v. AllenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Attorney General v. City of SalemMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. BryanSupreme Court of Florida · 1905
- Attorney General v. City of MethuenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Attorney General v. DrohanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Boston Elevated Railway Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Ulmer v. Lime Rock RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1904
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.