State v. Beechner

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtMarshall
Citation60 S.W. 1110,160 Mo. 78
PartiesSTATE ex rel. HAINES et al. v. BEECHNER et al.
Decision Date12 February 1901
60 S.W. 1110
160 Mo. 78
STATE ex rel. HAINES et al.
v.
BEECHNER et al.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
February 12, 1901.

QUO WARRANTO — RETURN — RIGHT TO AMEND.

In a quo warranto proceeding instituted in the circuit court by the prosecuting attorney, on leave, to oust defendants, who claimed to be directors of a school district, the relators demurred to defendants' return, which was sustained, with leave to file an amended return, which was done. Relators moved to strike out the order allowing the amended return, and for judgment, on the ground that but one return was permissible, and that, on the demurrer to the original return being sustained, they were entitled to judgment. Held, under Rev. St. 1899, p. 267, c. 8, art. 6, § 675, providing that the provisions of the practice act as to amendments shall apply to informations in the nature of quo warranto, on the demurrer to the original return being sustained defendants had a right to amend, even without leave of court; hence the motion was properly overruled.

Appeal from circuit court, Harrison county; P. C. Stepp, Judge.

Quo warranto by the state, upon information of W. D. Walton, prosecuting attorney, on the relation of Walker P. Haines and others, against Henry Beechner and others. From a judgment for defendants, relators appeal. Affirmed.

O. G. Williams and J. C. Wilson, for appellants. A. S. Cummings and Wanamaker & Barlow, for respondents.

MARSHALL, J.


This is a proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto, instituted by leave of court in the circuit court of Harrison county, in the name of the state, upon information of the prosecuting attorney, upon the relation of the regularly elected, acting, and qualified directors of school district No. 3, township 62, range 26, of Harrison county, against the defendants, who claim to be the regularly elected school directors of school district No. 5 of said township and range. District No. 5 is composed of a part of what was formerly district No. 3. An attempt was made to divide district No. 3 into two districts, to be called 3 and 5, respectively. Steps were taken looking to this end. The part here called No. 3 voted against the proposition by a vote of 22 to nothing. The part here called 5 voted for the separation by a vote of 66 to 19. An appeal was taken to the county school commissioner, and the division and creation of the new school district was ordered by that commissioner, and defendants claim to be duly-elected school directors of the new district. The relators are the directors of the original school district. The purpose of this proceeding is to have the proceedings which brought about the division of the original district declared void, to oust the defendants from the office of school directors of the newly-formed district No. 5, and thereby to restore the original status of district No. 3. The information specifically set out the steps taken to accomplish the division, and asked a judgment of ouster. The defendants made a return setting up specifically the various steps taken to divide the original district, and their election in proper form as directors of the new district No. 5. The plaintiffs demurred to this return, and the court sustained the demurrer, gave leave to the defendants to file an amended return, which they did, denying the allegations of the writ or information, and pleading every act and fact done or that existed in reference to the

60 S.W. 1111

proceedings to divide the district, and their election as directors of the alleged new district. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the order allowing defendants to file an amended return, and for judgment of ouster, on the ground that only one return is permissible in proceedings of this character, and when the original return was adjudged insufficient on demurrer the plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment of ouster. The court overruled the motion. The plaintiffs elected to stand on their motion, and judgment was entered for the defendants, confirming them in their offices of directors of the new district No. 5, and after proper steps the plaintiffs appealed.

The merits of this controversy are not open to review in the state of this record. The sole question before this court is the power of a circuit court to permit a return in a proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto instituted by a prosecuting attorney, at the relation of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • State v. Amour Packing Co., No. 16089.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 9, 1915
    ...contention, it is sufficient to say that a complete answer to the contention is found in State ex inf. v. Beechner, 160 Mo. loc. cit. 86 [60 S. W. 1110]. That case clearly marks the distinction between informations in the nature of quo warranto at the relation of a private person by leave a......
  • State ex inf. Graham v. Hurley, No. 59330
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 13, 1976
    ...law and the circumstances in each particular case.' Id. at 528. In support of the above, the court cited State ex rel. Haines v. Beechner, 160 Mo. 78, 60 S.W. 1110 (1901), where the court quoted at length from State ex rel. McIlhany v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 379 (1862) discussing the historical de......
  • State v. Eby
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1902
    ...in this court are governed, not by the Code, but by the general law on the subject. Id. § 4456; State v. Beechner, 160 Mo., loc. cit. 86, 60 S. W. 1110. The premises considered, and being mindful of our duty to exercise our superintending control over all inferior courts and keep them withi......
  • State ex Inf. Ellis v. Ferguson, No. 32395.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1933
    ...32 Mo. 379; State v. Buskirk, 43 Mo. 112; State v. Rose, 84 Mo. 198; State v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 687, 63 L.R.A. 761; State v. Becher, 160 Mo. 78; State v. Jobe, 205 Mo. 26; State v. Heffernan, 243 Mo. 442. When the relator is a proper person and will be allowed to file such proceeding is a p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • State v. Amour Packing Co., No. 16089.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 9, 1915
    ...contention, it is sufficient to say that a complete answer to the contention is found in State ex inf. v. Beechner, 160 Mo. loc. cit. 86 [60 S. W. 1110]. That case clearly marks the distinction between informations in the nature of quo warranto at the relation of a private person by leave a......
  • State ex inf. Graham v. Hurley, No. 59330
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 13, 1976
    ...law and the circumstances in each particular case.' Id. at 528. In support of the above, the court cited State ex rel. Haines v. Beechner, 160 Mo. 78, 60 S.W. 1110 (1901), where the court quoted at length from State ex rel. McIlhany v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 379 (1862) discussing the historical de......
  • State v. Eby
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1902
    ...in this court are governed, not by the Code, but by the general law on the subject. Id. § 4456; State v. Beechner, 160 Mo., loc. cit. 86, 60 S. W. 1110. The premises considered, and being mindful of our duty to exercise our superintending control over all inferior courts and keep them withi......
  • State ex Inf. Ellis v. Ferguson, No. 32395.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1933
    ...32 Mo. 379; State v. Buskirk, 43 Mo. 112; State v. Rose, 84 Mo. 198; State v. Railroad, 176 Mo. 687, 63 L.R.A. 761; State v. Becher, 160 Mo. 78; State v. Jobe, 205 Mo. 26; State v. Heffernan, 243 Mo. 442. When the relator is a proper person and will be allowed to file such proceeding is a p......
  • 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