Commonwealth v. Harriman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Information, m the nature of a quo warranta, filed, June 28, 1882, by the Attorney General in behalf .of the Commonwealth, at the request and upon the relation of Joseph M. Day, alleging that the defendant was usurping the office of Judge of Probate and Insolvency for the county of Barnstable.
Read the full summary
Information, m the nature of a quo warranta, filed, June 28, 1882, by the Attorney General in behalf .of the Commonwealth, at the request and upon the relation of Joseph M. Day, alleging that the defendant was usurping the office of Judge of Probate and Insolvency for the county of Barnstable. The case as it appeared from the pleadings, and the report of 0. Allen, J., before whom it was heard, was as follows : The relator was appointed Judge of Probate and Insolvency for the county of Barnstable, on May 19, 1858, by the Governor of the Commonwealth, with the advice and consent of the Council,…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
This is an information in the nature of a quo warranta, filed by the Attorney General, in behalf of the Commonwealth, at the relation of Joseph M. Day, to try the title of the defendant to the office of Judge of Probate and Insolvency for the county of Barnstable. The relator formerly held that office, having been appointed and qualified in 1858; and, in 1882, he was removed therefrom by the Governor, with consent of the Council, upon the address of both houses of the Legislature ; and the defendant was appointed in his place.
*324The relator contends that his removal was unconstitutional and…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Attorney General v. TuftsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Dittemore v. DickeyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Gray v. McLendonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Attorney General v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Townsend v. KurtzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1896
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.