State ex rel. Spriggs v. Shipton, 2671
Decision Date | 02 August 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 2671,2671 |
Citation | 286 P.2d 601,74 Wyo. 239 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. John J. SPRIGGS, Plaintiff, Relator, and Appellant, v. J. F. SHIPTON, as County Treasurer of the County of Fremont, State of Wyoming, Defendant and Respondent. |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
John J. Spriggs, Sr., John J. Spriggs, Jr., Lander, for appellant.
Smith and Nicholas, W. J. Nicholas, Lander, for respondent.
Before RINER, C. J., BLUME, J., and PARKER, District Judge.
This case, number 2671 in this court (number 5200 in the trial court), consolidated for trial with case number 2670 in this court (number 6485 below), is an appeal from a judgment denying plaintiff's request for mandamus to force the issuance of a tax deed by the county treasurer. 286 P.2d 598. The original suit was brought against Charles M. Hall, county treasurer of Fremont County, and later, when Hall's term had expired, J. F. Shipton was substituted as defendant.
The facts, as they appear to this court, are that John J. Spriggs on December 7, 1932, paid for and received certificates of purchase covering certain mining claims located in Fremont County, which claims had previously been sold to Fremont County for delinquent 1928 and 1929 taxes. On July 17, 1934, prior to the time that the instant suit was filed, one Marshall Graham, receiver of Federal Gold Mining Company et al., had brought an injunction suit in the District Court of Fremont County, Wyoming, against Charles M. Hall, county treasurer of Fremont County, and had secured an injunction against Hall, reading in part as follows:
Plaintiff herein was not made a party to the injunction suit and he did not intervene therein.
The trial court in the instant case on ex parte hearing issued an alternative writ of mandamus, and on final hearing vacated the alternate writ, giving judgment for the defendant, from which judgment plaintiff has appealed.
Although counsel stressed other matters, which the trial court may or may not have considered, the question which occurs to us as paramount is: Should a court consider and determine whether or not an official should be ordered to do something contrary to another order of the same court or a court of the same status?
Our statutes relating to injunction and those relating to mandamus are both similar to those of the State of Ohio, a state much quoted in the law relating to the problem before us. For example, in 34 Am.Jur., Mandamus, § 77, it is stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
IN RE BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS SUBLETTE COUNTY, 00-248.
...The denial of a petition for writ of mandamus will only be reversed upon a finding of abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Spriggs v. Shipton, 74 Wyo. 239, 286 P.2d 601, 602 (1955). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court could not reasonably conclude as it did. Martinez v. State, ......
-
LeBeau v. State ex rel. White, 1
...the right in question is doubtful. Wyoming has adhered to and followed this general rule in the following cases: State ex rel. Spriggs v. Shipton, 74 Wyo. 239, 286 P.2d 601, 602; State ex rel. Moore v. Van Tassell Real Estate & Live Stock Co., 53 Wyo. 89, 79 P.2d 476, 480; State ex rel. Cro......
-
Tibbals v. Board of County Com'rs of Fremont County, 2670
...(number 5200 below) and is an appeal from a judgment denying plaintiffs relief in a suit to quiet title on mining claims and for damages. 286 P.2d 601. Although the pleadings and evidence contain reference to other matters, the salient and pertinent facts relating to the case, as this court......