Winston v. Moseley

Supreme Court of Missouri

Winston v. Moseley

35 Mo. 146

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedMarch 15, 1864

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 35 Mo. 146 (Winston v. Moseley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winston v. Moseley, 35 Mo. 146 (Mo. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

Bates, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition for a mandamus. Winston was, prior to December, 1863, Commissioner of the permanent seat of Government. In December, 1863, the General Assembly elected another person commissioner, who received a commission as such. Winston claims that he is still lawfully in office, and presented to the auditor an account for a quarter’s salary, which the auditor refused to allow. Winston asks of this court a writ of mandamus, commanding the auditor to audit and allow the account.

The application for. a mandamus is refused. It is no part of the duty of the auditor to determine the right to the office. It is sufficient to justify him in refusing to audit the account of Winston, that another person is in fact the officer holding the commission. The right to the office cannot be [147]*147determined as a collateral matter in this proceeding. The law provides a direct proceeding for such cases.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.-

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

Bates, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition for a mandamus. Winston was, prior to December, 1863, Commissioner of the permanent seat of Government. In December, 1863, the General Assembly elected another person commissioner, who received a commission as such. Winston claims that he is still lawfully in office, and presented to the auditor an account for a quarter’s salary, which the auditor refused to allow. Winston asks of this court a writ of mandamus, commanding the auditor to audit and allow the account.

The application for. a mandamus is refused. It is no part of the duty of the auditor to determine the right to the office. It is sufficient to justify him in refusing to audit the account of Winston, that another person is in fact the officer holding the commission. The right to the office cannot be [147]*147determined as a collateral matter in this proceeding. The law provides a direct proceeding for such cases.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Mo. 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winston-v-moseley-mo-1864.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack