State ex rel. Chamblin v. Branch

28 Mo. App. 131, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 2
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 5, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 Mo. App. 131 (State ex rel. Chamblin v. Branch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Chamblin v. Branch, 28 Mo. App. 131, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 2 (Mo. Ct. App. 1885).

Opinion

Philips, P. J.

This is an application for a writ of quo warranto. It is apparent, from the petition, that while the information is made in the name of the prosecuting attorney of Lafayette county, it is, in fact, at the relation and for the benefit of a private person, to determine the question of the right of relator, or respondent, to hold and exercise the office of mayor in a municipal corporation situate in Lafayette county, Mo. As such, the application comes clearly within the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State ex rel. v. Buskirk (43 Mo. 111); State ex rel. v. Stewart (32 Mo. 379); State ex rel. v. Lawrence (38 Mo. 535); State v. Vail (53 Mo. 97).

The constitutional provision conferring jurisdiction on this court to grant a writ of quo warranto is identical with that conferring jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in such matters. The same rule of construction and of practice should apply in both courts. The petition an this case shows no special reason why this court should exercise its constitutional right in the premises. [132]*132The circuit court has jurisdiction, and is invested, by statute, with all the necessary machinery for the determination of this controversy, and no fact is stated which would justify this court in turning aside from the consideration of the great number of causes, properly here on appeal, and suffering for determination, to hear this case on the facts and the law. And we think it both wise and important not to establish, by hearing this application, a precedent which might, and probably would, come back to plague us.

For this reason the application is refused.

All concur.

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

Related

State ex rel. Mason v. Springfield African Social & Improvement Club
154 S.W. 458 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Mo. App. 131, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-chamblin-v-branch-moctapp-1885.