Jones v. State ex rel. Snodgrass

• Decision Date: 20 October 1887
• Citation: 13 N.E. 416,112 Ind. 193
• Parties: Jones v. State ex rel. Snodgrass.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

112 Ind. 193

13 N.E. 416

Jones

v. State ex rel.Snodgrass.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

October 20, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Delaware county.C. E. Shipley and Gregory & Silverburg, for appellant. John R. McMahon, Theo. F. Rose, and Edward M. White, for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

This was a proceeding by the state, on the relation of Robert M. Snodgrass, challenging the right of Charles E. Jones to continue in the office of county commissioner for the First district in Delaware county. A demurrer was overruled to the complaint or information, the material averments of which are that at the general election holden in November, 1884, the relator, an elector residing in the First commissioner's district of Delaware county, and eligible to the office of county commissioner, was duly elected, by receiving the highest number of votes cast at such election, to the office of county commissioner for the district mentioned. It is averred that the relator was elected as the successor of the defendant, who was elected at the general election holden in 1882, and who took possession of the office on the eighteenth day of November, 1882, and whose term of office, it is alleged, expired on and prior to the twenty-first day of November, 1885, at which date the relator received his certificate of election, and qualified according to law. The information concludes with the averment that, although the relator has been ready and willing to enter upon the duties of the office, the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully usurps and intrudes into the same.

It is urged, as an objection to the complaint, that instead of stating the facts upon which the relator bases his title, or which show that he is eligible to hold the office, the information merely states inferences and conclusions. There is much force in the objection. The essentials of an information, in a proceeding such as this, are that it contain such a plain statement of the facts which constitute the grounds of the relator's claim as makes it affirmatively appear that he has title to the office in controversy, so as to “show his interest in the matter.” Sections 1133, 1134, Rev. St. 1881; Reynolds v. State, 61 Ind. 392. While there is no essential fact omitted from the information under consideration, the facts are nevertheless stated in a manner entirely too general to furnish an example of good pleading. It is alleged therein that the relator was an elector of the county of Delaware, residing in the First district, and that he was eligible to the office of county commissioner. This averment shows the eligibility of the relator in such a manner as to leave no room for criticism in that regard. The statement of facts showing the grounds of his title is open to more serious objection. Since, however, the fact is stated that the relator received the highest number of votes cast at an election lawfully held in November, 1884, to fill the office in dispute, and that he was duly elected and qualified as the successor of the defendant, whose term had expired prior to November, 1885, we are constrained to hold that the information sufficiently shows the relator's title, to withstand a demurrer. Parmater v. State, 102 Ind. 90, 3 N. E. Rep. 382. An information in the nature of a quo warranto, when brought on the relation of an individual to establish his right to an office, is regarded in the light of a civil remedy, invoked for the determination of a civil right, and its sufficiency is to be determined by the rules applicable to pleadings in civil actions. High, Extr. Rem. § 710. Where a pleading contains a statement of all the essential...