State Ex Rel. Stubbs v. Wallace

The majority holding enlarges the heretofore understood office of a writ of mandamus by the allowance of a writ requiring a public officer to institute an action against one not a party to this cause and contrary to the advice of the Attorney General, the officer’s duly constituted legal adviser. If this is not a proper interpretation of the majority opinion, then the judgment to follow is innocuous. This court is not only substituting itself as .legal adviser of the officer, but is prying the lid offi a veritable Pandora’s box.

In the case of State, ex rel. Roth, v. West, Dir. of Finance, 130…