People ex rel. Wagenseil v. Stephenson

98 Mich. 218
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 22, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 98 Mich. 218 (People ex rel. Wagenseil v. Stephenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Wagenseil v. Stephenson, 98 Mich. 218 (Mich. 1893).

Opinion

Montgomery, J.

An information in the nature of a quo warranto was filed in the circuit court for the county of St. Clair, on relation of William F. Wagenseil, against the respondent. On the trial of the issue the relator was adjudged entitled to the office, and a judgment of ouster entered. The respondent thereupon sued out a writ of error to this Court, and by this motion asks to have the proceedings upon the judgment stayed.

Upon a judgment of amotion from office, the jiarty amoved is divested of all official authority, and excluded from office, so long as the judgment remains in force. High, Extr. Rem. § 756. And, when judgment is rendered in favor of a relator, he needs no writ to invest him with [219]*219the office. Under section 8639, How. Stat., he is entitled to take upon himself the execution of the office. Can this right be defeated or suspended by suing out a writ of error and giving a bond to stay execution? The statute (sections 8679, 8681) provides for a stay of execution by suing out a writ of error, but does not authorize a suspension of a judgment which requires no aid from process to give it effect. The practical result of permitting such a writ to suspend the judgment in quo warranto cases would in many eases be to defeat the relator of his remedy wholly. Such a construction is not to be indulged, except it be imperatively required by the terms, which we think is not the case here. This precise question was determined by the Court in the October term of 1886, in the unreported case of Emmons v. Board of Supervisors. See, also, Welch v. Cook, 7 How. Pr. 282.

The motion will be denied.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

State ex rel. Nixon v. Belt
873 S.W.2d 644 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
Attorney General Ex Rel. Cook v. Burhans
7 N.W.2d 370 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1942)
City of Phoenix v. Rodgers
34 P.2d 385 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1934)
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Board of Supervisors
168 S.E. 617 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1933)
Smith v. Reid
244 N.W. 81 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1932)
State Ex Rel. Attorney-General v. Sanderson
217 S.W. 60 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1919)
Reese v. Steel
83 S.W. 335 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1904)
Powers v. Commonwealth
61 S.W. 735 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1901)
Foster v. Superior Court
47 P. 58 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Fawcett v. Superior Court
46 P. 389 (Washington Supreme Court, 1896)
Peterson v. Wayne Circuit Judge
108 Mich. 608 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)
State ex rel. Craig v. Woodson
31 S.W. 105 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 Mich. 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-wagenseil-v-stephenson-mich-1893.