Hood v. Cruso

Mississippi Supreme Court

Hood v. Cruso

174 So. 552, 179 Miss. 234, 1937 Miss. LEXIS 17

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMay 24, 1937

DocketNo. 32661.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 174 So. 552 (Hood v. Cruso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hood v. Cruso, 174 So. 552, 179 Miss. 234, 1937 Miss. LEXIS 17 (Mich. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion on the suggestion of error.

This is a proceeding in quo warranto prosecuted by the appellant personally, and involves a contest over the position of schqol trustee in the City of Biloxi. When a private litigant brings quo warranto, acting independently and not on the relation of the state, the burden of proof is upon him to show his right to the office by a preponderance of the evidence; and the nature of the evidence must be clear and dependable, since in such case the presumption of right rests with the occupant of the office. We affirmed the judgment on the former submission without a written opinion, and now write only to say that a thorough re-examination of the record shows that the minutes of the city board in regard to school trustees and their terms going back for twenty years are in such a state of uncertainty, not to say confusion, that we are unable to say with confidence that the conclusions of the trial judge were incorrect.

Suggestion of error overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion on the suggestion of error.

This is a proceeding in quo warranto prosecuted by the appellant personally, and involves a contest over the position of schqol trustee in the City of Biloxi. When a private litigant brings quo warranto, acting independently and not on the relation of the state, the burden of proof is upon him to show his right to the office by a preponderance of the evidence; and the nature of the evidence must be clear and dependable, since in such case the presumption of right rests with the occupant of the office. We affirmed the judgment on the former submission without a written opinion, and now write only to say that a thorough re-examination of the record shows that the minutes of the city board in regard to school trustees and their terms going back for twenty years are in such a state of uncertainty, not to say confusion, that we are unable to say with confidence that the conclusions of the trial judge were incorrect.

Suggestion of error overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 So. 552, 179 Miss. 234, 1937 Miss. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-cruso-miss-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack