State v. Town of Mansfield

Decision Date17 February 1903
Citation72 S.W. 471,99 Mo. App. 146
PartiesSTATE ex rel. JACKSON v. TOWN OF MANSFIELD et al.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from circuit court, Wright county; Argus Cox, Judge.

Quo warranto by the state, on relation of J. W. Jackson, prosecuting attorney, against the town of Mansfield and others. From a decree in favor of defendants, relator appeals. Affirmed.

Statement of the Case.

This is a quo warranto proceeding instituted at the relation of the state of Missouri, in the name of the prosecuting attorney of Wright county, to oust the defendants Crippen, McKain, and White from the offices, respectively, of mayor, marshal, and collector of the town of Mansfield, and to deprive said town of its rights, franchises, and privileges as a city of the fourth class, on the ground that it was illegally incorporated as such. The petition charges that said town, on the petition of two-thirds of its inhabitants, presented to the county court of Wright county, was, by an order of said court entered prior to February 13, 1893, incorporated as a village under the provisions of section 1666 of the Revised Statutes of 1889; that on the date mentioned a petition was presented to said county court which sought to have the corporate character of the town changed to that of a city of the fourth class, but that the proceedings to that end were void. The return alleges the town was incorporated as a city of the fourth class on the 7th day of February, 1893, by an order of the county court of Wright county on the petition of a majority of its then tax-paying citizens, and has ever since enjoyed the rights, privileges, and franchises of such a city; that the respondents are the officers. After denying the allegations of the petition, the return next pleads acquiescence and recognition by the state and public of the corporate individuality of the town of Mansfield as a city of the fourth class for 8½ years, and that because of laches the state should not be allowed to question the validity of its incorporation. The return also states the town has been sued as a city of the fourth class, and judgments rendered against it and paid; that justices of the peace have been appointed for it on the same theory; that its territory has been excluded from road districts; that it has levied taxes, enacted and enforced ordinances, improved streets, park, and a cemetery, regulated the speed of trains, created a board of health, and done other things within the powers of a city of the fourth class. Further, that, should the town be ousted of its franchises, all said acts would be rendered illegal, and future acts of the same kind prevented; that the public park, streets, and sidewalks could not be kept in repair, nor the speed of trains through the town be regulated, nor quarantine against disease established; it being averred that, at the time this action was instituted, two cases of smallpox had been quarantined in the town, which could not be cared for; and other matters and things were pleaded, of a similar tenor. A motion to strike out that portion of the answer setting up the plea of laches or estoppel was filed by appellant and overruled. The records of the county court of Wright county were admitted at the trial to have been consumed by fire February 25, 1897, including the record of any order of said county court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • State v. Arkansas Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 24, 1913
    ...v. Town of Westport, 116 Mo. 582, 22 S. W. 888. In another case it was held that eight years barred this right. State ex rel v. Town of Mansfield, 99 Mo. App. 146, 72 S. W. 471. But these were cases where the state inquired in effect by what right the respondent cities exercised corporate T......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Utilities Co., 34073.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1936
    ......337; State ex rel. McAllister v. Cupples Station L., H. & P. Co., 283 Mo. 115; State ex inf. v. School District, 284 S.W. 135; State ex rel. v. Town of Mansfield, 99 Mo. App. 146; State ex rel. Letchner v. Dearing, 253 Mo. 605; People v. City of Le Roy, 293 Ill. 278, 127 N.E. 695. (2) This court ......
  • State ex Inf. Shartel v. Mo. Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 5, 1932
    ......(a) The relator is barred by laches from maintaining this action. State ex inf. Otto v. School Dist., 284 S.W. 135; State ex rel. v. Town of Westport, 116 Mo. 582; State ex rel. v. Town of Mansfield, 99 Mo. App. 146. (b) The State is barred by laches or by waiver from investigating ......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. American Colony Ins.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 7, 1935
    ......545; Emporia Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Comm., 97 Kan. 136, 154 Pac. 262; People ex rel. Glens Falls v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 225 N.Y. 216; Town of North Hempstead v. Public Service Corp., 231 N.Y. 447; Public Serv. Comm. v. Pavilion Natural Gas Co., 232 N.Y. 146; New York v. New York Tel. ...State ex rel. v. Westport, 116 Mo. 594; State ex inf. v. Arkansas Lumber Co., 260 Mo. 284; State ex rel. Jackson v. Town of Mansfield, 99 Mo. App. 146; State ex inf. v. School District of Lathrop, 314 Mo. 315; Stamper v. Roberts, 90 Mo. 683; Kitchen v. Railroad Co., 69 Mo. 224; ......
  • 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