State v. Lane
| Decision Date | 16 October 1889 |
| Citation | 18 A. 1035,16 R.I. 620 |
| Parties | STATE v. LANE. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Quo warranto by the attorney general on the relation of Robert Murray to test the title of the respondent, Benjamin H. Lane, to the office of superintendent of public schools of the town of Cumberland. Pub. St. R. I. c. 50, § 4, provides: etc.
Charles E. Gorman, for relator. Daniel R. Ballou and Frank H. Jackson, for respondent.
This case was submitted to the court upon the following agreed statement of facts, namely: "It is agreed that the above-entitled case may be heard and determined by the court upon the said information and answers filed therein, together with the following agreed statement of facts: Transcript of records of the town council of Cumberland, showing the election of school committee of said town from the year 1883 to 1889, inclusive:
The main question raised by the agreed statement of facts, including the pleadings, and the one which is decisive of the controversy, is this, viz. Who composed the legally constituted school committee of the town of Cumberland on the 1st day of July, 1889, the time at which the defendant claims to have been elected superintendent of public schools of said town? Seven members was the number allowed by law. The defendant's answer to the information filed by the attorney general alleges that the school committee at that time consisted of seven members, the limit allowed by law, to-wit: John D. Patterson, Thomas W. Hague, Benjamin H. Lane, Charles E. Howes, Conrad W. Cook, Thomas J. Smith, and Thomas Hughes; that each member had been duly elected to his said office by the town council of said town, as appears of record; and that they had duly qualified to act in said capacity. The attorney general, in his replication to the defendant's answer, denies that the school committee consisted at that time of John D. Patterson, Thomas W. Hague, Benjamin H. Lane, Charles E. Howes, Conrad W. Cook, Thomas J. Smith, and Thomas Hughes, but, on the contrary, avers that said committee consisted of John D. Patterson, Benjamin H. Lane, Charles E. Howes, Conrad W. Cook, Thomas J. Smith, Thomas Hughes, and James A. Wilde.
The record of the doings of the town council, above set forth, is by no means clear or satisfactory, and we are therefore compelled to resort to inference to some extent in order to determine some of the facts necessary to a decision of the case. The first inference which we draw from the record is that under the original division of said school committee into three classes by lot, as provided by section 4, c. 50, Pub. St., the term of office of three members thereof expired at the end of the third year from the time of said division, that the term of office of two members thereof expired at the end of two years there from, and that the term of office of the remaining two members thereof expired at the end of one year there from; that hence it follows that at the end of the first year after said division into classes there were two vacancies to be filled for three years, that at the end of the second year there were two vacancies to be filled for three years, and that at the end of the third year there were three vacancies to be filled for three years, and so on down to the present time; the council electing three members every third year, and two members each year during the two intervening years, each member being elected of course for three years. This manner of proceeding would constantly insure a body of seven members, the council, of course, filling any vacancies that might from time to time occur by death, resignation, or otherwise. Commencing, then, at the beginning of the record before us, we find that in June, 1883, three members were elected for three years. We assume that the committee was then full. In 1884 two members were elected for three years, and in 1885 two members were elected for three years. These three elections, taken in the order in which they occur, show that the original division of the committee into three classes, as provided by statute, resulted in the manner we have assumed. The record for 1886 is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Webb v. Cianci
... ... Fargnoli v. Cianci, 121 R.I. 153, 162, 397 A.2d 68, 73 (1979); Andrews v. Stiles, 99 R.I. 546, 547-48, 209 A.2d 210, 211 (1965); State v. Kearn, 17 R.I. 391, 396-97, 22 A. 1018, 1020 (1891); State v. Lane, 16 R.I. 620, 626, 18 A. 1035, 1037 (1889); see also State v. Brown, 5 R.I. 1, 11 (1857). The origins of the information are directly linked to the ancient writ of quo warranto. That was a high-prerogative civil writ of right in England, reserved for the use of the Crown to demand by what ... ...
-
Black v. Early
... ... School District v. Dorton, 125 Mo. 439; Railroad v ... Shambaugh, 106 Mo. 557; City of Hopkins v ... Railroad, 79 Mo. 100; State ex rel. v. School ... District, 79 Mo.App. 103. No objection was made by ... demurrer or reply, as the record now stands, to the school ... ...
-
Black v. Cum Mings
... ... is accompanied by an affidavit of counsel for the petitioners that the attorney general declined to bring the petition on behalf of the state. We assume that in the performance of his official duties he refused to allow the petition to be thus brought for reasons that appealed to his ... Thus in State v. Lane, 16 R.I. 620, 626, 18 A. 1035, 1037, decided in 1889, the court said: "As to the claim made in the pleadings that the relator, Mr. Murray, was ... ...
-
Fargnoli v. Cianci, 78-295-M
... ... 161] A quo warranto writ, or an information in the nature of quo warranto, is a common law remedy or proceeding whereby the state directs an individual to show by what warrant he holds public office and to oust him from its enjoyment if the claim is not well founded. The writ ... See State v. Kearn, 17 R.I. 391, 396-97, 22 A. 1018, 1020 (1891); State v. Lane, 16 R.I. 620, 622, 626, 18 A. 1035, 1036-37 (1889); State v. Brown,5 R.I. 1, 5-7 (1857). Jurisdiction to hear any proceeding upon a writ of quo ... ...