Case ID: okla_28/html/0435-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SMITH v. HALL.
    No. 2338.
    Opinion Filed March 21, 1911.
    (114 Pac. 608.)
    COURTS — Supreme Court — Original Jurisdiction — Quo Warranto. Quo warranto in the Supreme! Court, brought by a private relator, contesting the right of respondent to the office of county judge, will be dismissed, where there has been no showing that the relief demanded could not be secured by an action in the district court of the district in which the county lies.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Quo warranto by Wilson N Smith against W. C. Hall. Dismissed.
    
      
      Preston 8. Davis, for relator.
    
      Louis N. Stivers and A. R. Swank, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an original action filed in this court by relator, who is contesting the right of respondent to the office of county judge of Delaware county. A motion has been lodged seeking’ the dismissal of the action, because the same does not involve matters publici juris and is brought by a private relator, and that no showing has been made that the relief demanded could not be adequately secured by bringing the action in the district court of the district in which this county lies.

On the authority of Homesteaders v. McCombs, 24 Okla. 201, 103 Pac. 691, and State ex rel. v. Cobb, County Judge, 24 Okla. 662, 104 Pac. 361, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 639, the motion of counsel for respondent must be sustained, and the action is accordingly dismissed.