State ex rel. Lamkin v. Hackmann
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) Mandamus is the proper remedy. State ex rel. v. Gordon, 236 Mo. 142; State ex rel. v. Wilder,, 199 Mo. 470; State ex rel. v. Wilder, 196 Mo. 429; State ex rel. v. Meier, 143 Mo. 447; Mansfield v. Fuller, 50 Mo. 339; 26 Cye. 235, 236; 19 Am. & Eng. Eney. Law (2 Ed.), 782-785; High, Extra1. Rem.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) Mandamus is the proper remedy. State ex rel. v. Gordon, 236 Mo. 142; State ex rel. v. Wilder,, 199 Mo. 470; State ex rel. v. Wilder, 196 Mo. 429; State ex rel. v. Meier, 143 Mo. 447; Mansfield v. Fuller, 50 Mo. 339; 26 Cye. 235, 236; 19 Am. & Eng. Eney. Law (2 Ed.), 782-785; High, Extra1. Rem. (3 Ed.), sec. 104; Merrill on Mandamus, sec. 126. (2) And the return in the nature of a demurrer to the petition for the writ (which, under the stipulation, stands as and for the alternative writ itself) admits the facts pleaded in the petition. State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 256 Mo. 714;…
1Opinion of the CourtFaris, J.
This is an original proceeding by mandamus to compel the respondent, who is the State Auditor, to audit for payment two expense-accounts for traveling expenses incurred by the petitioner, who is the State Superintendent of Public Schools.
The issuance of an alternative writ was waived by the respondent and it was agreed that the petition for the writ should stand for all purposes as and for the alternative writ.
The pleadings state the case. The first count, omitting formal parts, and parts already substantially stated, runs thus:
“Your petitioner says that, in the month of July, 1917, in…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Crowe v. BoyleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Terrell v. KingTexas Supreme Court · 1929
- State Ex Rel. Kopper Kettle Restaurants, Inc. v. City of St. RobertMissouri Court of Appeals · 1968
- Morgan v. Jewell Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1936
- State ex rel. Bradshaw v. HackmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.