State ex rel. Whitcomb v. Otis
| Decision Date | 19 July 1894 |
| Docket Number | 8954 |
| Parties | State ex rel. George R. Whitcomb v. Charles E. Otis District Judge |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued July 12, 1894
Petition to this court July 3, 1894, by George R. Whitcomb relator, for a writ of Mandamus to Charles E. Otis, Judge of the District Court of Ramsey County, commanding him to entertain the application of the petitioner and others for a writ of Quo Warranto and to exercise his discretion on the merits of the application.
On June 14, 1894, George R. Whitcomb, Carman N. Smith and eight others applied in the District Court before Charles E. Otis J., for leave to file an information in the nature of Quo Warranto against W. E. Lockerby and S. A. Locke for intruding into and usurping the offices of directors, president and vicepresident of the Northern Shade Cloth Co., a corporation created under 1878 G. S. ch. 34, Title 2. The verified petition to the District Court stated that two of the seven directors of the corporation having sold their stock resigned as such officers and at a subsequent special meeting of the stockholders one faction voted for the election of Lockerby and Locke to the vacancies, and the other faction voted for two other persons, that at the election disputes arose over the validity, title and control of certain shares of the stock, and that on the decision of these disputes depended the result, and the future control of the corporate affairs that Lockerby and Locke claimed to have been elected directors and that two of the old directors united with them and elected Lockerby president and Locke vicepresident of the board. An order was granted requiring them to show cause before the District Court on June 16, 1894, why Whitcomb and his party should not have leave to file their relation and obtain from that court a writ directed to Lockerby and Locke to show by what right they intruded into and usurped the offices of directors, president and vicepresident of the corporation. They appeared and opposed the application and the District Court on June 23, 1894, denied the application because it appeared that a like application on substantially the same grounds in the same matter had been made to this court and denied. State ex rel. v. Lockerby, 57 Minn. 411.
Thereupon Whitcomb presented to this court July 3, 1894, his petition reciting the facts above mentioned and prayed that a writ of Mandamus issue to Charles E. Otis, Judge, commanding him to entertain the application of June 14, 1894, and to decide the same on its merits. This court thereupon ordered that Charles E. Otis, Judge, appear on July 9, 1894, and show cause if any there be, why such writ of Mandamus should not issue. He appeared by counsel and answered setting up the former decision of this court above mentioned and submitted that it would have been an abuse of judicial discretion to have allowed the writ of Quo Warranto in view thereof. That if mistaken as to the purport and effect of that decision, he asks to be advised and is ready and willing to hear and determine the application on its merits, if directed so to do.
Carman N. Smith, and James I. Best, for petitioner.
Francis G. Burke, for respondent.
Canty J. Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.
Whitcomb and others made an application to this court for leave to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto. The application was...
To continue reading
Request your trial