Case ID: ohio-st_52/html/0062-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Crawford et al. v. State ex rel.
    
      Quo warranto — Parties.
    An action in quo warranto to test the right to hold the position of director of an agricultural society cannot be brought by persons claiming the place on their own relation.
    (Decided October 30, 1894.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Brown county.
    The defendants in error, James DeVore, S. M. Pickerill, T. C. Shinkle and T. J. Williams, broug’ht action in the circuit court in the nature of quo wa/rrconto, in the name of the state against the plaintiffs in error, fifteen in number, to compel said parties to show by what authority or warrant of law, they claim to exercise the office of directors of the Brown County Agricultural Society, a corporation not for profit, without a capital stock, duly organized under the laws of Ohio, and for judgment of ouster against the respondents and of induction against the relators.
    The petition alleged a right in the relators as such directors because of an election held January 20, 1894, at which four directors only could be elected, and at which relators were legally chosen such directors; and charg’ed that the respondents claiming to have been elected at the election referred to, had organized themselves into a board of directors, and were illegally undertaking to hold and exercise the'powers, duties and privileges of the office of such directors. Other allegations were embraced in the petition, but the foregoing is sufficient to show the nature of the case sought to be made by the relators.
    To this pleading a demurrer was interposed on the ground, among others, that the relators have not the legal capacity to sue or to maintain the action.
    The demurrer being overruled, issue was taken by answer and the cause tried, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the relators, to reverse which this proceeding in error is brought.
    
      John M. Markley, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Bambach & Son and Young & Barnes, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

The demurrer to the petition raises the question whether or not the. relators could, on their own motion, and' independent of the attorney general, or the prosecuting attorney, maintain the action.

Wé answer the question in the negative. The course of procedure in actions in quo warranto is regulated by chapter 3, of title IV, of the Revised Statutes. No authority is there given for the bringing of such action to test the right to hold a place other than a public office save by the action of the attorney-general, or prosecuting attorney, or, in. ease of the disability of the latter officer, by a proper substitute appointed by the court.

Judgment reversed.