Hinckley v. Breen

• Decision Date: 01 April 1887
• Citation: 9 A. 31,55 Conn. 119
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HINCKLEY and others v. BREEN and another.

9 A. 31

55 Conn. 119

HINCKLEY and others

v. BREEN and another.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 1, 1887.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county.

G. Hine and H. C. Baldwin, for appellants, (plaintiffs.)

C. W. Gillette and W. Kennedy, for appellees, (defendants.)

CARPENTER, J. The plaintiffs brought this suit as a committee of a school-district. The defendants claim to be committee-men of the same district. It is conceded that Hinckley was duly elected, and was entitled to the office. The other plaintiffs received less than a majority of the votes cast at the annual district meeting, but were declared elected by the moderator, and the meeting adjourned without day. The defendants, upon application duly made, were appointed by the board of school visitors to fill the supposed vacancies. This suit was brought to restrain the defendants from acting as members of said committee. The defendants in their answer deny some portions of the complaint, and set up the proceedings of the district at its annual meeting, and the proceedings which resulted in their appointment by the board of school visitors. To this answer the plaintiffs demurred. The demurrer was overruled, and the court proceeded to try the case on its merits. The court made a finding of facts, and dismissed the complaint on the sole ground that the plaintiffs had misconceived the form of action. The plaintiffs appealed. A more particular reference to the facts is unnecessary.

We think the plaintiffs, upon the undisputed facts, are not entitled to a judgment. Before the practice act it is very clear that title to an office could only be tried on a writ of quo warranto, or proceedings in the nature of quo warranto. A bill in equity was not an appropriate remedy. The practice act has wrought no change in the law in this respect. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants have any personal interest in the matter in controversy, except as the right to an office is involved; and as to that right one of the plaintiffs has no interest, for his title to the office is undisputed. The only party beneficially interested in procuring the injunction is the district; and the district is not a party. If the object of the suit, therefore, was to save the equitable and beneficial rights of the district, by preventing rival parties, each claiming to represent it, from making contracts in its name, the suit should have been brought by the district. The action, as it stands, seems to confuse the...