State v. Matthews
| Citation | 153 Ala. 646,45 So. 307 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. GOODGAME ET AL. v. MATTHEWS. |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1907 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; W. W. Pearson, Judge.
Quo warranto by the state of Alabama, on the relation of Will Goodgame and another, against Emmett A. Matthews. From a judgment for defendant, relators appeal. Affirmed.
Rushton & Coleman and J. O. Middleton, for appellants.
William A. Collier, for appellee.
Under our statutory system a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto is a civil action, to try a civil right, and a complaint averring the act or omission complained of, concisely and clearly, is necessary to support the action. A complaint faulty in this respect is subject to demurrer. Section 3428 of the Code of 1896; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. State of Alabama ex rel. Gray, 45 So. 296; State v. Price, 50 Ala. 571.
The ground laid in the information as amended, in this case, upon which it was sought to oust the defendant of the right to exercise the prerogatives of the office of mayor of Clanton, to which he had been elected, is that he was not a qualified elector of the town, nor of the county or state, at the time of his election, had not been such since his election, and was not at the time of the filing of the information a qualified elector. By the charter of the town, of which this court will take judicial notice, the sole qualification requisite to a lawful holding of the office of mayor is prescribed; and that qualification is that the person shall have been a bona fide citizen of said town for two years next preceding his election to the office. The legislative competency to prescribe this qualification and to exclude all others cannot be doubted. Consequently the disqualification relied on cannot defeat appellee's right to the office.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dillard
...... upon which the relator relies to sustain his title to the. office, and, so far as practicable, specify the objections. intended to be made to the title of the respondent.'. State v. Price, 50 Ala. 568; State ex rel. Goodgame v. Matthews, 153 Ala. 646, 45 So. 307. And the. statute (Civ.Code, 1896, § 3428) requires that 'the. complaint in such action must concisely and clearly set forth. the act or omission complained of.' State ex rel. Johnson v. Sou. B. & L. Ass'n, 132 Ala. 50, 31 So. 375; L. & N.R.R. Co. v. State ex rel. ......
- Ham v. State
-
Oberhaus v. State
...... from the present case. One essential difference is that a. motion to sell land levied on in a justice court (as in the. Moog Case) is not a civil action, and is strictly and purely. statutory; while our statutory quo warranto is a civil action. (State ex rel. Goodgame v. Matthews, 153 Ala. 646,. 45 So. 307), and but a legislative substitute for its. common-law prototype, with which it substantially accords (. Harris v. Elliott, 117 Ala. 150, 23 So. 124), and by. the general principles of which it is governed. Another. feature of the Moog Case, apparently decisive of ......
-
State ex rel. Gravitt v. Kellett
...... in said office at the time the Governor appointed respondent. to fill said vacancy, good pleading required that the relator. should have specified the objections intended to be made to. the title of the respondent. State ex rel. Goodgame v. Matthews, 153 Ala. 646, 45 So. 307; Ham v. State ex. rel., supra. In this particular the complaint or information. was defective, and subject to demurrer. . . The. relator having declined to plead further upon the sustaining. of the demurrer to the complaint, the court committed no. error ......