State v. Portland & Ogdensburgh Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Information, in the nature of a quo warranto, pending at the trial term. The respondent moved to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction. The motion was denied, and the defendants excepted. The state moved that the ease be transferred to the law term. The motion was granted, and the defendants excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtStanley, J.
This court, at the law term, has jurisdiction of, and is vested with power to issue, writs of quo warranto. Gen. St., c. 189, s. 1; Laws of 1876, c. 25, s. 3. The writ of quo warranto has been superseded in England, and in most of the states of the Union, by the quo warranto information, and the objects to be attained by it arc identical with those secured by the ancient writ. It lies in all cases where the writ itself could have been maintained. High Ex. Leg. Rem., ss. 591, 600. The legislature must have had in view the long disuse of the writ when the power to issue it was vested in the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Owen v. WestonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- Bartlett v. LeeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880