Case ID: ohio_5/html/0228-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Case of the Bank of Mount Pleasant.
    
      Mandamus mode of proceeding.
    In this case, application was made at the Supreme Court in Jefferson county, in 1831, for a rule to be directed to the Bank of Mount Pleasant, situate in that county, to show cause why a writ of quo warranto should not issue, to examine and determine if its charter should not be forfeited, for certain alleged misfeasances. The application was made by an attorney of the court, in the name of a private individual, and was adjourned here for decision. The application was refused; but it was ruled as follows :
    1. An application for a writ of quo warranto against a corporation must be commenced by rule against the corporation to show cause why the writ should not be awarded.
    2. The rule must be applied for, by the prosecuting attorney of the proper county, for and in behalf of the state.
    3. Application may be made for the rule to the Supreme Court, sitting in any county of the state, previous *notice having been given to the party concerned of the intention to make the application. But the rule must be made returnable to the Supreme Court of the county where the party against whom it is taken resides, or is located, whether the party be an individual or a corporation.
    4. Upon the return of the rule, the court, upon hearing, will sustain or refuse the application, as circumstances and proofs may show to be right.
    5. In case the writ be awarded, the proceeding must be according to the common law, the ordinance having so directed, and there being no legislation on the subject.
    6. If, in a proper case, the prosecuting attorney decline to make-¡application for the rule, the court will order him to make it peremptorily, or direct it to be made by another person, according to circumstances.