Case Name: State of Delaware upon the Information of Robert C. White, Attorney-General, vs. John W. Green
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1897-10-27
Citations: 1 Penne. 63
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Delaware upon the Information of Robert C. White, Attorney-General, vs. John W. Green.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 63–75

Head Matter:
State of Delaware upon the Information of Robert C. White, Attorney-General, vs. John W. Green.
Quo Warranto—Majority Opinion of Court—Dissenting Opinion by Grubb, f.
Under the decision in Knight & Kennedy vs. Ferris, 6 Houston, 283, the Superior Court sitting in Kent County cannot issue a writ of quo warranto to a person who, it is alleged, in the information of the Attorney-General. has usurped and assumed to act as a Levy Court Commissioner for Seaford Hundred, Sussex County.
(October 27, 1897.)
Lore, C. J., and Grubb and Pennewill, J. J., sitting.
R. C. White, Attorney-General, and John M. Richardson for the State.
Walter H. Hayes and Joseph L. Cahall for defendant.
(Special appearance for the purpose of making a motion.)
Superior Court, Kent County,
October Term, 1897.
Rule to show cause why a writ of quo warranto should not issue. Rule granted returnable October 27th, 1897.
The Attorney-General then filed the following information:
“ The information of Robert C. White, Attorney-General of the State of Delaware, respectfully showeth and gives the Court here to understand and be informed, that one john W. Green, late of North West Fork Hundred in the county and State aforesaid, was, on the Tuesday next, after the first Monday in November, A. D. 1894, duly elected a Levy Court Commissioner for the Hundred of Seaford in and for Sussex County for the term of four years commencing on the first day of February, A. D. 1895, and ending on the thirty-first day of March, A. D. 1899; that on the first day of April A. D. 1897, the said John W. Green removed from the Hundred of Seaford, and ceased to be a. freeholder and resident of Seaford Hundred from thence thereafter, and the said office of Levy Court Commissioner for Seaford Hundred, then and thereby became vacated and remained vacated until the fifth day of August A. D., 1897; that on the said fifth day of August A. D. 1897, Ebe W. Tunnell, Esq., Governor of the said State, duly appointed and commissioned Willard H. Handy to be Eevy Court Commissioner for said Seaford Hundred for and during the term from thence to the thirty-first day of March A. D., 1899, next ensuing. That the said John W. Green does unlawfully and wrongfully and without color of right continue to usurp and hold the said office of Eevy Court Commissioner for Seaford Hundred, in the county aforesaid, contrary to the provisions of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the rights of the said Willard H. Handy. Wherefore your relator prays that a rule issue out of this Honorable Court requiring the said John W. Green to appear on some convenient day before this Honorable Court and show cause, if any he hath, why he hath as aforesaid usurped and assumes to act as a Eevy Court Commissioner for Seaford Hundred aforesaid, and as in duty bound your relator will ever pray, &c.”
Mr. Hayes moved that the rule be discharged and the information quashed, on the ground that the Superior Court of Kent County had no jurisdiction, the cause of action being local to Sussex County.
Knight & Kennedy vs. Ferris, 6 Houston, 320; Dunlap vs. Stewart, 6 Hous., 359, (the latter as to its being a civil action.)
Mr. White replied; citing the mandamus case of Hastings vs Henry, 2 Delaware Term Reporter, 39, where he claimed the same objection was raised, but was disregarded by the Court.

Opinion:
The Court held the case up until the afternoon session, and then delivered the following decision:
Eorp, C. J:—
After conference, a majority of the.Court
think that the rule should be discharged.
There is but one reported case directly upon the point raised in this case in this State. That is the case of Knight & Kennedy vs. Ferris, 6 Hous., 283. Messrs. Bradford & Higgins, who represented the defendants in error, presented this point: That the court below sitting in Sussex County had jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus against a public officer in New Castle County and that it was so held in the court below, 6 Hous., 146.
Chancellor Saulsbury, who in his opinion directly considered this point—no other opinion appearing in conflict with it—on page 314 of Sixth Houston, as appears by the report of the case, uses this language:
' ' In considering this case, I shall confine myself to two questions : First, had the Superior Court of this State, sitting in Sussex County, jurisdiction to award a writ of mandamus in this case. ' ' Thus the point was directly raised and passed upon by the Chancellor.
Then on page 328 of the same report he uses this language : " There were many causes of error assigned to the record and proceedings below. I have considered only two, and express no opinion with respect to the others." One of those points was whether or not this was a local action ; and the Chancellor there distinctly took the position that it was a local action, and on page 318 uses this emphatic language : "No one ever supposed, that a purely local action, or one arising in a particular county of the State, and which could not have arisen elsewhere, could be heard and determined by the court in another county although the process of the court, necessary and proper to be issued in the case might, in the language of the constitution, be issued out of the court in the county in which the suit or controversy was pending in either county into every county."
Judges Comegys and Wootten sat with the Chancellor. Judge Wootten delivered an opinion, but it does not antagonize in any way the opinion of the Chancellor ; it certainly is not inconsistent with the position taken by the Chancellor. Judge Comegys seems to have expressed no opinion. Therefore upon the face of the report, this seems to have been the opinion of the Court of Errors and Appeals.
This is the decision of the court of highest jurisdiction in this State. It may be true, as Judge Grubb has stated, that in Sussex County this question came up afterwards before the Superior Court, and that there Chief Justice Comegys—one of the Judges who sat above—expressed a different view, and the court were unanimously with him. That case, however, is not reported. In any event there seems to be conflict, and where conflict exists, one case being reported and the other not', one case being in the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State, and the other in a subordinate court, a majority of this court think we ought to follow the ruling of the Court of Errors and Appeals until it shall be overruled by competent authority. Expressing no opinion whatever as to whether the action is local or not, yet as the court of highest jurisdiction has expressed an opinion that it is a local action, we think that opinion should prevail until it is otherwise determined.
In the case of Hastings vs. Henry, 2 Hardesty, 39, (1 Marvel, 287), cited by the Attorney-General, this precise question was not passed upon in the opinion. That w7as a case where the action was brought in Sussex County against a registration officer of Sussex County, and as a matter of course the question was not properly before us, and any opinion thereon necessarily would have been obiter dictum.