State v. Bernoudy

36 Mo. 279
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1865·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Holmes, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an ex-officio information in the nature of quo warranto, filed in this court by the circuit attorney of the county of St. Louis against the defendant, for usurpation of the office of recorder of said county, and praying judgment of ouster and costs. The defendant filed his answer or plea, on [281] which the circuit attorney on behalf of the State now asks judgment by motion in the nature of a demurrer. The plea or answer of the defendant contains nothing which constitutes any valid defence in law or fact to the information.

The motion is sustained; and the court further considering that no evidence is offered to charge the defendant with any evil intent, and it being probable that he acted from mistaken views only, will not avail itself of the power given by law to impose a fine on him, and will condemn him to pay the cost only of this proceeding.

The other judges concur.

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

State v. Bernoudy, 36 Mo. 279 (Mo. 1865).

36 Mo. 279 (State v. Bernoudy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Upon the Information of McKittrick v. Wymore
132 S.W.2d 979 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1939)
State ex inf. Barker v. Duncan
175 S.W. 940 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
Riverside Cement Co. v. Masson
139 P. 723 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1914)
State ex rel. Young v. Village of Kent
104 N.W. 948 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)
State ex inf. Walker v. Equitable Loan & Investment Ass'n
41 S.W. 916 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Cummings v. Spaunhorst
5 Mo. App. 21 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1877)
State ex rel. Conrad v. Bernoudy
40 Mo. 192 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1867)
State ex rel. Hequembourg v. Lawrence
38 Mo. 535 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1866)