Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

35 Mo. 146

Winston v. Moseley

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1864

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1864-03-15

<p>Mandamus. — The right to an office cannot be determined upon an application for a mandamus to the Auditor of Public Accounts to issue a warrant to the relator for the salary, while another person holds the commission. (State ex rel. Jaelcson, Auditor, &c., 34 Mo. 075.)</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1864-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1928

4 state decisions

101864187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bates, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This is a petition for a mandamus. Winston was, prior to December, 1863, Commissioner of the permanent seat of Government. In December, 1863, the General Assembly elected another person commissioner, who received a commission as such. Winston claims that he is still lawfully in office, and presented to the auditor an account for a quarter’s salary, which the auditor refused to allow. Winston asks of this court a writ of mandamus, commanding the auditor to audit and allow the account.

¶3The application for. a mandamus is refused. It is no part of the duty of the auditor to determine the right to the office. It is sufficient to justify him in refusing to audit the account of Winston, that another person is in fact the officer holding the commission. The right to the office cannot be *147determined as a collateral matter in this proceeding. The law provides a direct proceeding for such cases.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.-
/35/mo/146 · .json · Public domain