Parsons v. Durand
| Decision Date | 05 April 1898 |
| Docket Number | 18,275 |
| Parties | Parsons et al. v. Durand |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Miami Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
Milton Kraus, Bailey & Lawrence, Loveland & Loveland and James F. Stutesman, for appellants.
John Mitchell, Frank D. Butler and Charles A. Cole, for appellee.
At the May election in the year 1894, Jesse S. Zern was elected to the office of mayor of the city of Peru, and served in said office until the 9th day of May, 1896, when he departed this life. On the evening of May 9, 1896, the appellee, Orson Durand, was chosen to fill the vacancy in said office, and giving bond and taking the oath of office, entered upon the duties of said office. On the 12th day of May, 1896, the appellant, Charles A. Parsons was chosen to fill said vacancy, and also executed a bond and took the oath of office. Thereupon the appellee sought and obtained a restraining order against the appellant Parsons and his co-appellants, members of the common council and clerk of said city, whereby they were forbidden to recognize Parsons as mayor, or to refuse recognition to Durand as such officer or to expunge the order of selection of said Durand. There was much in the pleadings, and there is here considerable discussion, concerning the right of those making the selection of Durand to perform the functions of councilmen. That question related to the time of the beginning of the term of the successors in office of the councilmen participating in the action of May 9, 1896. Successors had been elected on the 5th day of May, 1896; and as to whether their terms should begin immediately upon qualifying, or from and after the 10th day of May, the day of the month on which the terms of their predecessors began, depending upon a construction of the act of February 11, 1893, known as the "McHugh Law" (Acts 1893, p. 50). By the decision of the circuit court the appellants were enjoined from interfering with the exercise, by the appellee, of the duties of the office until the title thereto should be determined by proper legal proceedings.
Counsel for the appellants insist that quo warranto, and not injunction, was the proper remedy, and that injunction against the appellants is an unauthorized interference by the judiciary with the exercise of legislative functions. If the decision of the lower court had involved the question of the title to the office of mayor, the first of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Terre Haute v. Burns
...ex rel. Miezer, 111 Ind. 369-372, 12 N. E. 700;Leonard v. City of Terre Haute, supra, 48 Ind. App. 112, 93 N. E. 872;Parsons v. Durand, 150 Ind. 203, 204, 49 N. E. 1047;Carmel Natural Gas, etc., Co. v. Small, 150 Ind. 427-429, 47 N. E. 11, 50 N. E. 476. It follows, therefore, that if Donn M......
-
State ex rel. Miller v. Miller
...defendants to entangle public business, and thereby jeopardize the rights, both of the public and of individual citizens. Parsons v. Durand, 150 Ind. 203, 49 N. E. 1047;Bradley v. Commissioners, 21 Tenn. 428, 37 Am. Dec. 563;State v. Ellis, 42 La. Ann. 1104, 8 South. 305;Segars v. Parrott (......
-
Landes v. Walls
...from wresting the office from him without process of law. City of Huntington v. Cast, 149 Ind. 255, 48 N. E. 1025;Parsons v. Durand, 150 Ind. 203, 49 N. E. 1047; Braidy v. Theritt, 17 Kan. 468; Guillotte v. Poincy, 41 La. Ann. 333, 6 South. 507, 5 L. R. A. 403;State v. Superior Court, 17 Wa......
-
City of Terre Haute v. Burns
... ... Griebel v. State, ex rel. (1887), ... 111 Ind. 369, 372, 12 N.E. 700; Leonard v. City ... of Terre Haute, supra, 112; Parsons v ... Durand (1898), 150 Ind. 203, 204, 49 N.E. 1047; ... Carmel Natural Gas, etc., Co. v. Small ... (1898), 150 Ind. 427, 429, 47 N.E ... ...