State ex rel. Harty v. Kirk
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County. Facts found and case reserved for advice. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGranger, J.
The question presented in this case is, whether the relator or the respondent is entitled to the office of street commissioner of the city of Bridgeport. The respondent is in possession of the office, and the object of this proceeding is to determine by what right he holds it. It is a public office, and being in possession and receiving the emoluments of it, the respondent ought to show a good title to it. His claim is that he was appointed to the office by the board of road and bridge commissioners of the city, at their meeting on the 8th of April, 1878; that this was a legal meeting, and…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1901
- Gale v. City of MoscowIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Rafferty v. Town CouncilSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Hartzler v. City of GoodlandSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Botts v. City of Valley CenterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.