Anderson v. Gordon
| Decision Date | 03 November 1900 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Application by William J. Anderson for a writ of injunction against J. G. Gordon, county auditor of Nelson county, and John W. Scott, county auditor of Grand Forks county.
Writ denied.
Bosard & Bosard, for relator.
Cochrane & Corliss for defendants.
The plaintiff, William J. Anderson, alleging that he is a citizen of the United States, a resident and qualified elector of the First ward of the city of Grand Forks, First Judicial District of North Dakota, and appearing by his counsel Messrs. Bosard & Bosard, who disclaim acting under the direction or by the authority of the attorney general, and without any allegation that the attorney general is unable or unwilling to act in the matter, seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court, and procure an injunction restraining the auditors of the counties of Grand Forks and Nelson, composing the First Judicial District, from placing the name of Charles J. Fisk upon the official ballot to be used at the approaching general election as a candidate for the office of judge of said district. Plaintiff desired to accomplish a restraint, but our statute (section 5343 Rev. Codes) having abolished the writ of injunction as a provisional remedy, and substituted an injunction by order and as such order could only be made in a pending case, the plaintiff caused a summons and complaint to be served upon the defendants as in an action in the District Court, and also served notice of an application to this court for a restraining order. When the application was made it was suggested by the court that it could exercise original jurisdiction only through jurisdictional writs, and that it could not acquire jurisdiction through service of summons. Thereupon counsel moved for leave to file his complaint as an information for writ of injunction, and that a preliminary injunction issue thereon. The defendants appear specially and object to this proceeding upon the grounds that the state is not a party plaintiff directly or upon relation, and that leave to file the information is not asked by the attorney general or by his authority. We think these objections are well taken. It is true that under the weight of modern authority, voiced by section 5232, Rev. Codes, where the question is one of general interest, one party may, without showing any special interest in himself, sue for all. The state need not be made a party plaintiff in any manner. But that is not the question here. The state constitution (section 87) declares that this court "shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, injunctions and such other original and remedial writs as may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial