371 or the title of a public 373 ercise jurisdiction over certain territory,3 officer actually in possession of an office under color of title and exercising its functions,372 is not subject to collateral attack, Ordinarily the only method of questioning the right of a corpora tion to exercise a power, or the title of the officer, is by quo warranto proceedings.374 § 1144. Laches and estoppel. The right of the state to maintain quo warranto proceedings questioning the power of a corporation to exercise jurisdiction over certain territory may be lost by laches,375 and one who vol untarily surrenders possession of an office to another cannot thereafter assert title to the office as against the subsequent incumbent.376 A respondent cannot defeat a relator's title by his own wrong.377 A proceeding in the nature of quo warranto, for trial of title to office, will not be sustained where the term of office must necessarily expire before judgment can be rendered.378 If 371 Henry v. Steele, 28 Ark. 455; State v. Ohio & I. Mineral Land Co., 84 Mo. App. 32. 872 Eaton v. Harris, 42 Ala. 491; Kaufman v. Stone, 25 Ark. 336; Hunter v. Chandler, 45 Mo. 452; Cochran v. McCleary, 22 Iowa, 75; Hagner v. Heyberger, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 104; State v. Alexander, 107 Iowa, 177, 77 N. W. 841. 373 Desmond v. McCarthy, 17 Iowa, 525; Ex parte Strahl, 16 Iowa, 369; Facey v. Fuller, 13 Mich. 527. See Vol. 2, §§ 644 et seq. 374 Neeland v. State, 39 Kan. 154, 18 Pac. 165; People v. Matteson, 17 Ill. 167; St. Louis County Ct. v. Sparks, 10 Mo. 117; Osgood v. Jones, 60 N. H. 543; Kerr v. Trego, 47 Pa. 292. Compare McAllen v. Rhodes, 65 Tex. 348; Sinclair V. Young, 100 Va. 284, 40 S. E. 907; McCue v. Wapello County Circuit Ct., 51 Iowa, 60. 375 State v. Town of Westport, 116 Mo. 582, 22 S. W. 888; People v. Hauker, 197 Ill. 409, 64 N. E. 253. Compare Place v. People, 192 Ill. 160, 61 N. E. 354, affirming 87 Ill. App. 527; People v. Gary, 196 III. 310, 63 N. E. 749. 376 State v. Moores, 52 Neb. 634, 72 N. W. 1056; Maddox v. York, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 622, 54 S. W. 24; State v. Boyd, 34 Neb. 435, 51 N. W. 964. See, also, Cate v. Furber, 56 N. H. 224. State v. Frantz, 55 Neb. 167, 75 N. W. 546. One in possession of an office, who at the end of his term voluntarily surrenders his office to one who on the face of the election returns appears to be elected, is not estopped to bring quo warranto. 377 State v. Steers, 44 Mo. 223. 378 Morris v. Underwood, 19 Ga. 559; People v. Sweeting, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 184; State v. Jacobs, 17 Ohio, 143. But see Burton v. Patton, 47 N. C. (2 Jones) 124. pending proceedings the relator's title is terminated, they will ordinarily be dismissed.379 Under certain circumstances the court will proceed to judgment, though the respondent has resigned 380 or abandoned the office.381 § 1145. When and for what purposes writ will issue. The remedy for usurpation by a city of authority over territory not legally annexed to it,382 or for the exercise by it of a power not conferred by its charter,383 is by quo warranto. The proceeding should be brought against the city itself and not its officers. If, however, the municipal corporation is not legally incorporated, the proceedings will be sustained against the persons acting as its officers.385 § 1146. At whose instance proceedings initiated. In some jurisdictions quo warranto or proceedings in the nature thereof can under certain circumstances be instituted only on the 379 Hurd v. Beck (Kan.) 45 Pac. 92; Lynde v. Dibble, 19 Wash. 528, 53 Pac. 370. When office has been abolished. But see People v. Rodgers, 118 Cal. 393, 46 Pac. 740, 50 Pac. 668. 380 Hunter v. Chandler, 45 Mo. 452; Attorney General v. Johnson, 63 N. H. 622, 7 Atl. 381. 381 State v. Graham, 13 Kan. 136; Hammer v. State, 44 N. J. Law, 667. 382 People v. City of Los Angeles, 133 Cal. 338, 65 Pac. 749; Ewing v. State, 81 Tex. 172, 16 S. W. 872; State v. Crow Wing County Com'rs, 66 Minn. 519, 68 N. W. 767, 69 N. W. 925, 73 N. W. 631, 35 L. R. A. 745; State v. Fleming, 147 Mo. 1, 44 S. W. 758. But see Stultz v. State, 65 Ind. 492, holding that injunction to restrain the officers of the corporation from exercising their powers over territory not within the city and not quo warranto is the proper remedy. See, also, People v. Whitcomb, 55 Ill. 172. 383 State v. Tracy, 48 Minn. 497, 51 N. W. 613. 384 People v. City of Peoria, 166 Ill. 517, 46 N. E. 1075; State v. Coffee, 59 Mo. 59; State v. Fleming, 158 Mo. 558, 59 S. W. 118; State v. Atlantic Highlands Com'rs, 50 N. J. Law, 457, 14 Atl. 560. 385 Harness v. State, 76 Tex. 566, 13 S. W. 535; State v. Osburn, 24 Nev. 187, 51 Pac. 837; People v. Gladwin County Sup'rs, 41 Mich. 647; State v. Uridil, 37 Neb. 371; 55 N. W. 1072; Attorney General v. Page, 38 Mich. 286; Ter. v. Armstrong, 6 Dak. 226, 50 N. W. 832. See, also, Poor v. People, 142 Ill. 309, 31 N. E. 676; People v. Brunnemer, 168 Ill. 482, 48 N. E. 43. Filing an information in quo warranto against a municipal corporation eo nomine is an admission of its corporate existence and cannot relation of the attorney general,386 or county attorney,387 when the purpose of the proceeding is to oust a municipal corporation from the unlawful exercise of a franchise, 388 or a person from an office into which he has intruded.389 In other jurisdictions the statutes provide that the appropriate law officer may 390 or shall 391 institute the proceedings on the relation of a private person. In some jurisdictions a proceeding may be instituted by a private relator, in the name of the state, with the consent of the law officer. 392 His authority to institute them cannot be collaterally attacked.393 Private persons. An information in the nature of quo warranto cannot be brought by private persons in their own names, be controverted by the relator. People v. City of Spring Valley, 129 Ill. 169, 21 N. E. 843. But see State v. Tracy, 48 Minn. 497, 51 N. W. 613. 386 Com. v. Burrell, 7 Pa. 34; State v. Schnierle, 5 Rich. Law (S. C.) 299; Wright v. Allen, 2 Tex. 158; Henry v. Steele, 28 Ark. 455; Patterson v. Hubbs, 65 N. C. 119; Miller v. Town of Palermo, 12 Kan. 14; Voisin v. Leche, 23 La. Ann. 25; State v. Davis, 64 Neb. 499, 90 N. W. 232. 387 Bartlett v. State, 13 Kan. 99; Ter. v. Armstrong, 6 Dak. 226, 50 N. W. 832; State v. Agee, 105 Tenn. 588, 59 S. W. 340. Law officer may dismiss when he deems it for best interest of state to do so. 388 Robinson v. Jones, 14 Fla. 256; McGahan v. People, 191 Ill. 493, 61 N. E. 418; Ter. v. Armstrong, 6 Dak. 226, 50 N. W. 832; Gibbs v. Borough of Somers Point, 49 N. J. Law, 515, 10 Atl. 377; Steelman v. Vickers, 51 N. J. Law, 180, 17 Atl. 153. See, also, State v. Town Council of Cohabo, 30 Ala. 66. State v. Tracy, 48 Minn. 497, 51 N. W. 613. Cannot be prosecuted by private relator with formal approval of attorney general. 389 Hayes v. Thompson, 21 La. Ann. 655; Harrison v. Greaves, 59 Miss. 453. Compare State v. Morgan, 80 Miss. 372, 31 So. 789. State v. Anderson, 45 Ohio St. 196, 12 N. E. 656. The attorney general may, on his own relation, bring quo warranto against a person who usurps a public office. 390 State v. Mott, 111 Wis. 19, 86 N. W. 569; Com. v. Fowler, 10 Mass. 295; Ter. v. Smith, 3 Minn. 240 (Gil. 164); People v. Bingham, 82 Cal. 238, 22 Pac. 1039; State v. Talty, 166 Mo. 529, 66 S. W. 361. The institution of the proceedings on the relation of a private person is within the discretion of the law officer, and his discretion can be interfered with only on clear abuse thereof. See, also, Haupt v. Rogers, 170 Mass. 71, 48 N. E. 1080. 391 State v. Withers, 121 N. C. 376, 28 S. E. 522. Attorney General cannot refuse permission to prosecute in name of state where relator gives bond for costs and expenses. 392 Duffy v. State, 60 Neb. 812, 84 N. W. 264; State v. Withers, 121 N. C. 376, 28 S. E. 522. 393 Fowler v. State, 68 Tex. 30, 3 except in cases expressly authorized by statute.394 In some states the statutes provide that the proceeding may be instituted by the public law officer or any other person 395 whenever he claims an interest in the office or franchise, which is the subject-matter of the suit. In still other jurisdictions proceedings to try the title. to an office may be instituted on the relation of a citizen and taxpayer, though he does not claim any title for himself,397 or when the law officer refuses to act.398 396 § 1147. Evidence and burden of proof. When an action in the nature of quo warranto is commenced and prosecuted by the state or its public officer, the respondent S. W. 255; McAllister's Ex'r v. Com., 69 Ky. (6 Bush) 581. 394 Haupt v. Rogers, 170 Mass. 71, 48 N. E. 1080. 395 Londoner v. People, 15 Colo. 557, 26 Pac. 135. 396 Mills v. State, 2 Wash. St. 566, 27 Pac. 560; State v. Sheriff, 45 La. Ann. 162, 12 So. 189; Yonkey v. State, 27 Ind. 236; State v. Town of Tipton, 109 Ind. 73; State v. Matthews, 44 W. Va. 372, 29 S. E. 994; State v. Balcom, 71 Mo. App. 27; People v. De Bevoise, 27 Hun (N. Y.) 596; Guillotte v. Poincy, 41 La. Ann. 333, 6 So. 507, 5 L. R. A. 403; State v. Hamilton County Com'rs, 39 Kan. 85, 19 Pac. 2; State v. Hamilton, 29 Neb. 198, 45 N. W. 279. Relator must show that he has a private interest distinct from other corporators and taxpayers. Demarest v. Wickham, 63 N. Y. 320; Miller v. Town of Palermo, 12 Kan. 14. State v. Dimond, 44 Neb. 154, 62 N. W. 498. Proprietor of lands can maintain proceedings to question power of city to tax real estate not lawfully included within the corporate limits, though he is not a voter in the city. Claimant for office. State v. Tay lor, 50 Ohio St. 120, 38 N. E. 24; State v. Stein, 13 Neb. 529; State v. Matthews, 44 W. Va. 372, 29 S. E. 994. Defeated candidate has no such interest as will authorize proceedings to oust candidate receiving plurality, on the ground that respondent has disqualified himself from holding office. Andrews v. State, 69 Miss. 740, 13 So. 853. Information is demurrable when brought by private person where it does not show that relator is entitled to office, though respondent has no title. 397 State v. Hall, 111 N. C. 369, 16 S. E. 420; State v. Orvis, 20 Wis. 235; Com. v. Jones, 12 Pa. 365; Taggart v. James, 73 Mich. 234, 41 N. W. 262; Churchill v. Walkee, 68 Ga. 681; Davis v. City Council of Dawson, 90 Ga. 817, 17 S. E. 110; Crovatt v. Mason, 101 Ga. 246, 28 S. E. 891; People v. Londoner, 13 Colo. 303, 22 Pac. 764, 6 L. R. A. 444; Hann v. Bedell, 67 N. J. Law, 148, 50 Atl. 364; State v. Taylor, 122 N. C. 141, 29 S. E. 101; State v. Jenkins, 25 Mo. App. 484; State v. Vann, 118 N. C. 3, 23 S. E. 932. 398 Lamoreaux v. Attorney General, 89 Mich. 146, 50 N. W. 812; has the burden of showing title to the office,399 or the right to exercise the franchise.400 When it is instituted by a private person who claims the office the burden is on the relator.401 403 Judgment. A judgment in quo warranto brought by a private person is res adjudicata in a subsequent action between the same. parties to recover the emoluments of the office,102 but not as to one who does not hold under either of the parties." All acts done by respondent after judgment of ouster are null and void.404 A judgment of ouster may be rendered though the effect thereof will be to leave the office vacant.405 In some jurisdictions the statutes authorize the recovery of damages by the relator on judg ment in his favor,406 or authorize the imposition of a fine on the usurper. 407 III. ACTIONS IN GENERAL. § 1148. Jurisdiction of courts. The jurisdiction of different courts to hear and determine cases or matters in which one of the parties is a public corporation is largely a matter of statute since the right of such a corporation to sue or its liability to action is dependent, to a certain extent, State v. Barker, 116 Iowa, 96, 89 N. 399 State v. Davis, 64 Neb. 499, 90 N. W. 232; State v. Beardsley, 13 Utah, 502, 45 Pac. 569; Montgomery v. State, 107 Ala. 372, 18 So. 157; State v. Foster, 130 Ala. 154, 30 So. 477; Simonton v. State, 44 Fla. 289, 31 So. 821; State v. Philips, 30 Fla. 579, 11 So. 922; State v. Tillma, 32 Neb. 789, 49 N. W. 806. See, also, Latham v. People, 95 Ill. App. 528; 400 Town of Enterprise v. State, 29 Fla. 128, 10 So. 740; People v. Bruennemer, 168 Ill. 482, 48 N. E. 43; McGahan v. People, 191 Ill. 493, 61 N. E. 418. 401 State v. Davis, 64 Neb. 499, 90 N. W. 232; Doane v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 393; State v. Bieler, 87 Ind. 320; State v. Long, 91 Ind. 351. 402 Jones v. Carver, 17 Colo. App. 484, 68 Pac. 1066. 403 People v. Murray, 73 N. Y. 535. 404 State v. Johnson, 40 Ga. 164. 405 State v. McGeary, 69 Vt. 461, 38 Atl. 165, 44 L. R. A. 446; People v. Howlett, 94 Mich. 165, 53 N. W. 1100. 406 Bravin v. Tombstone, 4 Ariz. 83, 33 Pac. 589. See, also People v. Nolan, 101 N. Y. 539. 407 People v. Weeks, 25 Abb. N. C. 230, 11 N. Y. Supp. 671; Davis v. Davis, 57 N. J. Law, 203, 31 Atl. 218. Compare Attorney General v. James, 74 Mich. 733, 42 N. W. 167; State v. Kearn, 17 R. I. 391, 22 Atl. 322, 1018. Not authorized in absence of statute. |