State ex rel. Hequembourg v. Lawrence

Citation38 Mo. 535
PartiesSTATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. CHARLES HEQUEMBOURG, Petitioner, v. SAMUEL LAWRENCE, Respondent.
Decision Date31 October 1866
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Petition for Quo Warranto.

And now comes Joseph P. Vastine, prosecuting attorney for the 8th Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, comprising the county of St. Louis, and at the relation of Charles Hequembourg, exhibits to this honorable court an information in the nature of a quo warranto, and states that Samuel C. Lawrence, the defendant, has usurped, intruded into, and unlawfully holds and executes the office of justice of the peace for the sixth ward of the city of St. Louis, in the county of St. Louis, and that said defendant has no right or authority to hold said office.

Plaintiff further states that the County Court of St. Louis county, heretofore, to-wit, on or about the 26th day of May, A. D. 1866, subdivided the county of St. Louis into forty election districts for the general election to be held November 6, 1866; and that the sixth ward of the city of St. Louis, in which the said Samuel C. Lawrence has usurped the office of justice of the peace as aforesaid, is included in the 23d, 24th, 25th and 26th election districts; and that said election districts comprise also portions of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th wards of the city of St. Louis; and that the general election for the year 1866 for said 23d election district was held at the house numbered 560, Market street, between Twentieth and Twenty-first streets, in the 5th ward of the city of St. Louis, and that registered voters residing in the 5th and 6th wards of the city of St. Louis voted thereat; and that the general election for the 24th election district was held at the courthouse in the 5th ward of the city St. Louis, and that registered voters residing in the 5th and 6th wards of the said city of St. Louis voted thereat; and that the general election for the 25th election district was held at the house of one Guerdman, in the 7th ward of the city of St. Louis, and that registered voters residing in the 6th, 7th and 8th wards of the city of St. Louis voted thereat; and that the general election for the 26th election district was held at the office of one Walther, in the 7th ward of the city of St. Louis, and that registered voters residing in the 6th, 7th and 8th wards of the said city of St. Louis voted thereat; and that no election was appointed or held in the sixth ward of the said city.

That all voters duly registered in the 23d election district were permitted and entitled to vote in said district at said general election without regard to the ward in which they lived, and that all voters duly registered in the 24th election district were permitted to vote at said general election in that district without regard to the ward in which they lived, and that all voters duly registered in the 25th and 26th election districts were permitted and entitled to vote at said general election in their respective districts in which they were duly registered without regard to the ward in which they lived; and that no election was ordered or held in the 6th ward.

Plaintiff further states, that the judges of the election for the 23d, 24th, 25th and 26th election districts certified to the County Court the number of votes cast for the various candidates for the office of justice of the peace for said 6th ward without regard to the residence of the voters, and that such certificates did not and could not show how many of said voters voting at said districts were residents of and entitled to vote for justice of the peace of the 6th ward, and that no election held in the 5th or 7th ward could be valid or effective to elect a justice of the peace for the 6th ward.

Plaintiff further states that there was no order of the St. Louis County Court, or any other authority, ordering an election for justice of the peace within said county, and no place designated for holding said election, and that there was no legal and valid...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • State v. Duncan
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1915
    ...ex rel. v. Claggett, 73 Mo. 388; State ex tel. v. Francis, 88 Mo. 557; State ex rel. v. Meek, 129 Mo. 431, 31 S. W. 913; State ex rel. v. Lawrence, 38 Mo. 535; State ex inf. v. Lindell Ry. Co., 151 Mo. 162, 52 S. W. 243; State ex rel. v. Pearcy, 44 Mo. 159; State ex inf. v. Kansas City, 233......
  • State ex Inf. Shartel v. Mo. Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1932
    ...action. State ex rel. Devan v. Williams, 291 S.W. 481. (8) The Attorney-General has no right to maintain this action. State ex rel. Hequembourg v. Lawrence, 38 Mo. 535; State ex rel. Boyd v. Rose, 84 Mo. 198; State ex inf. Killam v. Cons. School District, 277 Mo. 458, 209 S.W. 938; State ex......
  • State ex inf. Crow v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1903
    ... ... Equitable Assn., 142 Mo. 335; ... State v. Vail, 53 Mo. 97; State v ... Lawrence, 38 Mo. 535; State v. Stewart, 32 Mo ... 379; State v. Alt, 26 Mo.App. 673. (3) The ... 1773, 1830; 1 Beach on ... Private Corporations, sec. 58; State ex rel. v ... Meek, 129 Mo. 436; Ramsey v. Carhart, 27 Ark ... 12; Cupit v. Bank, 20 Utah 293; ... ...
  • State ex inf. Shartel, ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Missouri Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1932
    ... ... State ex rel. Devan v. Williams, 291 S.W ... 481. (8) The Attorney-General has no right to maintain this ... action. State ex rel. Hequembourg v. Lawrence, 38 ... Mo. 535; State ex rel. Boyd v. Rose, 84 Mo. 198; ... State ex inf. Killam v. Cons. School District, 277 ... Mo. 458, 209 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT