State ex rel. Attorney General v. Claggett

73 Mo. 388
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided April 15, 1881·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Hough, J.

As the information in this case was-filed at the relation of a private person, and as it further appears from the pleadings in the cause that the relator and respondent are rival claimants for the office of register of the city of Lexington, and that this proceeding is, therefore, nothing more than a contest over the title to said office, we are of opinion that the writ of quo warranto has been improvidently issued, and the proceeding will, there[389]*389fore, be dismissed. We see nothing in tbe circumstances of this case of such an exceptional nature as to induce us to depart from our long established custom to decline original cognizance of causes of thus character. State ex rel.Young v. Buskirk, 43 Mo. 111, and cases there cited. They can be tried with much less expense and inconvenience by the inferior tribunals having jurisdiction thereof, and the condition of our docket is not such as to cause us to invite accessions thereto by the unnecessary exercise of our original jurisdiction.

All the judges concur.'

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

State ex rel. Attorney General v. Claggett, 73 Mo. 388 (Mo. 1881).

73 Mo. 388 (State ex rel. Attorney General v. Claggett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Pickett v. Cairns
265 S.W. 527 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)
State ex inf. Barker v. Duncan
175 S.W. 940 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
State ex rel. Young v. Village of Kent
104 N.W. 948 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)
State ex rel. McNamara v. Wilson
90 Mo. App. 154 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Balcom
71 Mo. App. 27 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
State ex rel. Lloyd v. Elliott
44 P. 248 (Utah Supreme Court, 1896)