Maverick Oil Company v. Hanson

29 A. 461, 67 N.H. 203
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1892·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Chase, J.

This is not a proper proceeding to determine Hanson’s right to the office in question. It should have been an information in the nature of quo warranto, or a petition therefor brought in the name of the attorney-general as representative of the state. Osgood v. Jones, 60 N. H. 543. As Hanson is an officer de facto, at least (Jewell v. Gilbert, 64 N. H. 13), it does not appear that there is any occasion for a mandamus to fill the office by a new appointment and incidentally fix the appointee’s compensation.

Petition dismissed.

Carpenter, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Maverick Oil Company v. Hanson, 29 A. 461, 67 N.H. 203 (N.H. 1892).

29 A. 461 (Maverick Oil Company v. Hanson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Díaz Navarro v. Kern
26 P.R. 32 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1917)