State ex rel. Attorney General v. Messmore
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ACTION OE QUO WARRRANTO. The complaint (the substance of which is set forth ante, p. 116) charged the defendant with having, on the 11th day of April, 1861, unlawfully usurped the office of judge of the sixth judicial circuit.
Read the full summary
ACTION OE QUO WARRRANTO. The complaint (the substance of which is set forth ante, p. 116) charged the defendant with having, on the 11th day of April, 1861, unlawfully usurped the office of judge of the sixth judicial circuit. The defendant answered, 1. That he was, on the 10th of April, 1861, duly appointed by the governor of the state to the office of judge of said circuit “ to fill the vacancy ” in that office, “ created by a change in the boundaries of said circuit,” under an act of the legislature approved March 80th, 1861. 2. That on the 10th of April, 1861, the office of circuit judge…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Dixon, G. J.
Ye fully agree with counsel for tbe defendant tbat tbe constitution requires each of tbe circuit judges to be a resident of tbe circuit for which be is elected, and that sucb residence must continue till tbe end of bis term of office, or so long as be may desire to discharge tbe duties and receive tbe emoluments pertaining to the same. This conclusion is so apparent from tbe language of section 7 of article VII, as hardly to admit tbe aid of argument in its support. It is: “ And after be shall have been elected, be shall reside in tbe circuit for which he was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stocking v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by33 opinions
- State ex rel. Clarke v. IrwinNevada Supreme Court · 1869
- McCully v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1899
- State ex rel. Smith v. AskewSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Dorf v. SkolnikCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- State ex rel. Gibson v. FriedleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.