People ex rel. Larke v. Crawford
| Decision Date | 10 October 1873 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The People on the relation of Frederick D. Larke v. Leonard C. Crawford |
Heard October 10, 1873
Information in the nature of quo warranto.
In this case, when it was called on for hearing, it was discovered that by a mutual misapprehension of counsel it was not in condition to be heard without first raising and disposing of an issue of fact. Some controversy having arisen upon the formalities of the pleadings, the court gave the necessary instructions for forming the issues. The office in dispute was that of supervisor of the township of Rogers, in Presque Isle county.
Pleadings re-framed and leave granted to substitute new pleadings.
Byron D. Ball, Attorney General, and Sutherland & Wheeler for the relator.
Marston & Hatch for the respondent.
In cases of quo warranto, the respondent is required to disclaim or justify, and the plea is the first pleading that indicates the facts concerning which the controversy as to the right of office will arise. The information charges the respondent with intrusion into an office, and calls upon him to show by whet right he has assumed to hold it. The respondent may deny that he holds, or claims to hold it. Such a plea is a disclaimer, and no controversy of fact can arise upon it beyond the simple question of his exercise of the office. If he does not disclaim he must justify, and by a plea of justification he is bound to show all the facts necessary to establish his lawful right to hold the office. This is an affirmative showing, which he has the burden of maintaining, and it must conclude with a verification. No issue of fact can be joined in such cases, except upon a replication, or some pleading subsequent thereto, either by denial or by confession and avoidance.
As soon as the parties have come to an issue on the facts, it is to be tried before a jury like any other common-law issue. It is not necessary to set forth in the information the facts which would negative the respondent's title, and the latter cannot, therefore, demur to it for that deficiency, if otherwise sufficient, but must in all cases where he relies upon his own title, make a showing of it by his own pleadings.
The pleadings should be re-framed according to these rules, and leave is granted to substitute new pleadings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. State
...is an affirmative showing, the burden of maintaining which is upon the defendant, and should be concluded with a verification. People v. Crawford, 28 Mich. 88, 89; State McCann, 88 Mo. 386; State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 513; Spelling's Ex. Rem. §§ 1857, 1858, 1859. To a plea traversing usurpation......
-
Brooks v. State ex rel. Richards
...is an affirmative showing, the burden of maintaining which is upon the defendant, and should be concluded with a verification. People v. Crawford, 28 Mich. 88, 89; State McCann, 88 Mo. 386; State v. Ashley, 1 Ark. 513; Spelling's Ex. Rem. §§ 1857, 1858, 1859. To a plea traversing usurpation......
-
Johnston v. Savidge
... ... respective rights thereto." (People v. Prewett, ... 124 Cal. 7, 56 P. 619. See, also, State v. Frantz, ... (State v ... Douglass Co. Road Co., 10 Or. 199-273; People ex ... rel. Hartzel v. Hall, 80 N.Y. 117; People v ... Thatcher, 55 N.Y. 528, 529, ... Extraordinary Relief, p. 1509, sec. 1846; Lake v ... Crawford, 28 Mich. 88; People ex rel. Fulkenberg v ... Miles, 2 Mich. 349; Miller ... ...
-
The State ex Inf. Walton v. Beechner
...rel. v. Powles, 136 Mo. 380; High Ex. Leg. Rem. (2 Ed.), sec. 629; People v. Bartlet, 6 Wend. 422; People v. Pease, 30 Barb. 588; Larke v. Crawford, 28 Mich. 88. authorities go so far as to hold that it is not sufficient to show authority and qualification at the time of the issuing of the ......