State v. St. Louis Perpetual Marine

• Citation: 8 Mo. 330
• Parties: THE STATE v. THE ST. LOUIS PERPETUAL MARINE, FIRE, AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Decision Date: 31 July 1843
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

8 Mo. 330

THE STATE

v.THE ST. LOUIS PERPETUAL MARINE, FIRE, AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1843.

SCOTT, J.

The State, by the attorney-general, filed a motion for a writ of quo warranto, against the St. Louis Perpetual Marine, Fire, and Life Insurance Company, in order that proceedings might thereupon be had, in conformity with the provisions of an act entitled, “An act to repeal the charters of certain incorporated companies,” approved February 24, 1843. The motion indicates that the attorney-general is aware of the difference between a quo warranto and an information in the nature of a quo warranto.

This court, by the Constitution of the State, has power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, and other original remedial writs, and to hear and determine the same. It would seem that the General Assembly confounded the proceedings on a writ of quo warranto with those on an information in the nature of a quo warranto, by making it the duty of the attorney-general to apply to this court for a writ of quo warranto. A writ of quo warranto is in the nature of a writ of right for the State against any person who claims or exercises any office, to inquire by what authority he supports his claim, in order to determine the right. 3 Blacks. Com. 262. ^(a) The writ of quo warranto, in consequence of the length of its process, has long since become obsolete in the English law: and information in the nature of a quo warranto, wherein the process is speedier, has been substituted in its place. Tomlin's Law Dic., title Quo Warranto.

The General Assembly must have contemplated this last proceeding, in directing the attorney-general to apply to this court for a writ of quo warranto. A writ of quo warranto, as we have seen, is in the nature of a writ of right; it issues on demand of the proper officer of the State, as a matter of course, and there is no more necessity for an application to this court for this writ than there would be for a summons in the Circuit Court, when the State is about to commence an action of debt against one of her debtors. No reasons are offered why the writ should issue; no information is communicated by affidavit, or otherwise; and there is no power in this Court to refuse issuing the writ. Where, then, is the necessity of asking leave? The asking leave is the admission that this court has a discretion in refusing or granting a writ of quo warranto, whereas none is conceived to...