Legal Opinion

Hurd v. Beck

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 6, 1896No. 10,391PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Original proceeding in quo warranto.

1Per curiam

The plaintiff claims that he was appointed and that he duly qualified as a member of the board of directors of the Kansas state penitentiary for the full term beginning April 1, 1893, and ending April 1, 1896, and that on July 8, 1895, the governor made an order for his removal and then appointed M. M. Beck in his place and stead, but that said order of removal was illegal. The petition was filed July 22, 1895, and the defendant answered on August 23, 1895, briefly alleging the proceedings for removal, the order *12of his appointment, and stating that he duly qualified and forthwith entered upon…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
  2. State v. RoatSupreme Court of Kansas · 2020
  3. Anderson v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
  4. State ex rel. Jackson v. Ætna InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1912
  5. Albright v. Territory of New Mexico ex rel. SandovalNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1905

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API