State ex rel. Bend v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 18 February 1886 |
| Citation | 26 N.W. 729,34 Minn. 526 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, ex rel. William B. Bend, v. Perry Harrison |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Order to show cause why relator should not be permitted to file an information in the nature of quo warranto against the respondent, for alleged unlawful usurpation of the powers and duties of the office of colonel of the first regiment of the state militia.
Order discharged.
J. N Castle, for relator.
H. G Hicks, for respondent.
The relator having sought from the attorney general his official authority for the filing of an information in the nature of a quo warranto, and that officer having refused such application, the relator applied to this court for leave to file the same. Thereupon an order was granted requiring the respondent to show cause why the application should not be allowed. Through this proceeding the relator seeks to have the respondent required to show by what authority he exercises the functions of colonel of the first regiment of the national guard of this state. The matters now to be considered are such as were presented upon the hearing under the order to show cause, upon the relator's petition and the affidavit of the respondent in answer thereto. From such petition and answer the following facts appear: The relator and the respondent were elected and commissioned as colonel and lieutenant-colonel, respectively of the first regiment of the national guard of this state, by which name our militia organization is designated. Thereafter, and on the second day of June, 1885, by command of the governor of the state, (who by the constitution is constituted the commander in chief of the military and naval forces of the state,) issued through the adjutant general, the relator was put under military arrest, was suspended from his command, and the respondent was ordered to take command of the regiment.
On the 27th day of July, by the further command of the governor, an order was issued through the adjutant general in terms revoking the commission of the relator as colonel, and directing the respondent to continue in the command of the regiment until the further order of the commander in chief. Since June 2d, when the first of these orders was issued the respondent has assumed and exercised such command, performing duties ordinarily devolving upon the colonel. It is by reason of such acts that he is here charged with having usurped the office of colonel of the regiment. It is alleged in the answer of the respondent that such duties were performed by him only by virtue of his office as lieutenant-colonel, and of...
To continue reading
Request your trial