Quo Jure

WRIT OF.

In English law. The name of a writ commanding the defendant to show by what right he demands common of pasture in the land of the complainant who claims to have a fee in the same. Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 299.

WRIT OF. In English Law. The name of writ commanding the defendant to show by what right he demands common of pasture in the land of the complainant who claims to have a fee in the same. Fitzh. N. B. 299. QUO MINUS (Lat.). The name of a writ. In England, when the king’s debtor is sued in the court of the exchequer, he may sue out a writ of quo minus, in which he suggests that he is the king’s debtor, and that the defendant has done him the injury or damage complained of, quo minus sufficiens existit r by which he is less able to pay the king’s debt This was originally requisite in order to give jurisdiction to the court of exchequer; but now this suggestion is a mere form. 3 Bla. Com. 46. QUO WARRANTO (Lat. by what authority). In Practice. The name of a writ (and also of the whole pleading) by which the government commences an action to recover an office or franchise from the person or corporation in possession of it. The writ commands the sheriff to summon the defendant to appear before the court to which it is returnable, to show ( quo warranto) by what authority he claims the offfee or franchise. It was a writ of right, a civil remedy to try the mere right to the franchise or office, where the person in possession never had a right to it or has forfeited it by neglect or abuse; 3 Bla. Com. 262, 263. The action of quo warranto was prescribed by the Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I., and is a limitation upon the royal prerogative. Before this statute, the king, by virtue of his prerogative, sent commissions over the kingdom to inquire into the right to all franchises, quo jure quove nomine illi retinent, etc.; and, as they were grants from the crown, if those in possession of them could not show a charter, the franchises were seized into the king’s hands without any judicial proceeding. Like all other original civil writs, the writ of quo ivarranto issued out of chancery, and was returnable alternatively before the king’s bench or justices in eyre; Co. 2d Inst. 277, 494; 2 Term 549. Originally it was a proceeding of a criminal nature by the attorney general to punish usurpation of office; State v. Lawrence, 38 Mo. 535. This writ fell into disuse and its place was taken at an early date by an information in the nature of a quo warranto. The statute of 9 Anne was passed to make the practice more speedy and effective. The writ could issue by leave of court at the relation of any person or persons desiring to sue or prosecute the same. The law is now chiefly statutory. Statutes referring to u quo warranto ” are usually held to include in- 34 Wis. 197 (so of a state constitution; State v. Inv. Ass’n, 142 Mo. 325, 41 S. W. 916); but it has been held otherwise; State v. Ins. Co., 8 Mo. 330. An information in the nature of quo warranto, though in form a criminal; see Robinson v. Jones, 14 Fla. 256; is in substance a civil, proceeding, to try the mere right to the franchise or office; 3 Bla. Com. 263; Com. v. County Com’rs, 1 S. & R. (Pa.) 382; 2 Kent 312; Thompson v. People, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 537, 591; but see People v. R. Co., 13 111. 66. It is a matter of sound discretion to grant or refuse a writ of quo warrant o, or an information in the nature thereof; Lynch v. Martin, 6 Houst. (Del.) 4S7; Com. v. Reigart, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 216; People v. Keeling, 4 Colo. 129; but it has been held that this absolute discretion is only when a mere public right is asserted and that when a private right is involved, as when one is claiming an office, he is entitled to the writ as a matter of right; State v. Burnett, 2 Ala. 140; but when the information has been allowed to be filed, the court has no more power to dispense with the law applicable, or to refuse to enforce it, on the ground that the case is unimportant or impolitic, than in any other case; when the information is filed, all the discretionary power of the court is expended; State v. Brown, 5 R. I. 1. A statutory election contest and quo warranto proceedings are accumulative remedies unless it is otherwise provided by statute; State v. Elliott, 117 Ala. 150, 23 South. 124. A constitutional provision that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, does not guarantee the right of trial by jury in quo warranto proceedings; State v. Doherty, 16 Wash. 3S2, 47 Pac. 95S, 58 Am. St. Rep. 39. If the proceedings refer to the usurpation of the franchises of a municipal corporation, the right to. file the information is in the state, at the discretion of the attorneygeneral; Robinson v. Jones, 14 Fla. 256; see Rice v. Bk., 120 Mass. 300; Gibbs v. Somers Point, 49 N. J. L. 515, 10 Atl. 377; not of citizens; id. Individuals cannot take proceedings to dissolve a corporation; Centre & K.

Lat.

In old English practice. A writ which lay for one that had land in which another claimed common, to compel the latter to show by what title he claimed it. Cowell; Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 128, F.