WALLACE
v.
ANDERSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that a writ of quo warranto—a legal proceeding to challenge someone's right to hold public office—can only be brought by the government and not by a private individual acting without governmental authority. Because the writ in this case was issued by a private person without government authorization, the Court reversed the Circuit Court's judgment and ordered dismissal of the information.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court, that a writ of quo xoarranto could not be maintained except at the instance of the Government, and as this writ was issued by a private individual, without the authority of the Government, it could not be sustained, whatever might be the right of the prosecutor, or of the person claiming to exercise the office in question. The information must, therefore, be dismissed.
Judgment reversed.
. Judgment. This cause came on to be heard. .on the transcript of the record of the Circuit Court for the district of Ohio, and was argued by counsel, On consideration whereof, this .Court is of opinion, that no writ of quo warranto can be maintained, but at the instance of the Government; and as this is a writ issued by an individual without the authority of Government, it is the opinion of this Court, that the same cannot be sustained, whatever may be the right of that individual, or of the person who claims to exercise the office, to try the title to which, the writ is brought. It is, therefore, the opinion of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court ought-to be reversed, and. thé cause remanded , to that Court, with directions to dismiss the information because it is not filed at the instance of the United States;
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1933)…e ex rel. Saranac L. & T. Co. v. Supreme Court, 220 N.Y. 487, 491; 116 N.E. 384; State v. Lewis, 107 N.C. 967, 977; 12 S.E. 457; 13 S.E. 247; Cocke v. Halsey, 16 Pet. 71, 87; Ex parte American Steel Barrel Co., 230 U.S. 35, 45. Wallace v. Anderson, 5 Wheat. 291; Territory v. Lockwood, 3 Wall. 236; Newman v. U.S. ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 637; First National Bank v. Fellows, 244 U.S. 416, 427-428; First National Bank v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 660-661. High on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3d ed,,' § 604.…
-
First Nat'l Bank in ST. Louis v. State of Mo. at the Info. of Barrett, 263 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1924)
-
First Nat'l Bank of Bay City v. Fellows, 244 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1917)…ought to exclude the exercise of a franchise, privilege or power claimed under the United States it can only be brought in the name of the United States and by its representative, or in such other mode as it may have sanctioned. Wallace v. Anderson, 5 Wheat. 291; Territory v. Lockwood, 3 Wall. 236; Newman v. Frizzell, 238 U. S. 537. As is said in the Lockwood Case, “the right to institute such proceedings is inherently in the Government of the nation.” This is particularly true of national banks, for they n…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence