Case ID: njl_69/html/0609-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE STATE, EX REL. EDWARD M. SEARING, v. EDWARD D. CLARK. THE STATE, EX REL. F. W. E. MINDERMANN, v. LORENZO D. TILLYER.
    Argued June Term, 1903
    Decided August 12, 1903.
    
      Mandamus will not issue to compel the surrender of a public office when the title to the office presents a debatable question of law.
    On application for mandamus.
    
    Before Justices Garrison and Swayze.
    Eor the relator, Benjamin W. Ellicott.
    
    Contra, Willard W. Cutler.
    
   Per Curiam.

In each of these eases the relator applies for a writ of mandamus, upon the ground that his right to it by virtue of his office is clear. The testimony shows that a contrary right is set up by the defendants. This question of right, viz., the title to the office in each case, has been argued before us. It presents a debatable question of law. So long as this question is unsettled the right of the relator to a writ of mandamus cannot be said to be clear. The contest between these individuals over the right to the office, which each claims, cannot be settled in this proceeding. The town of Dover is not a party, and hence no question concerning the rights are considered.

The relator’s application in each case is denied, with costs.