People ex rel. Westcott v. Holley
New York Supreme Court
Information in the nature of a quo warranto. On the eleventh day of January, in the term of January, 1832, the attorney-general filed the information in this case, complaining that on the second, day of the same month of January, the defendant had usurped, without lawful authority, the office of sheriff of the county of Columbia.
Read the full summary
Information in the nature of a quo warranto. On the eleventh day of January, in the term of January, 1832, the attorney-general filed the information in this case, complaining that on the second, day of the same month of January, the defendant had usurped, without lawful authority, the office of sheriff of the county of Columbia. The defendánt pleaded, that on the first Monday of November, 1831, he was duly elected to the office ; that on the first day of December thereafter, he received from the clerk of the county a certified copy of the certificate of the proper officers, declaring him to…
1Opinion of the Court
*482 By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
The title of the defend-an( t0 the office of sheriff of the county of Columbia is impeached, on the ground that he did not enter into the official bond which by law he was bound to give, within'twenty days after he received due notice of his election to the office of sheriff. The question is, whether he forfeited his title to the office by omitting to give the security required by law, within twenty days after receiving notice of his election. This question arises under a provision of the revised statutes, 1 R. S. 379, § 67, which declares that “ Every person…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Dishon v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- People v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Wampler v. State ex rel. AlexanderIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Woolridge v. McKennaUnited States Circuit Court · 1881
- Board of Commissioners v. JohnsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.