Case Name: State ex rel. Wasson v. Taylor
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1893
Citations: 50 Ohio St. 120
Docket Number: 
Parties: State ex rel. Wasson v. Taylor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 50
Pages: 120–120

Head Matter:
State ex rel. Wasson v. Taylor.
Quo warranto— When pj'ivate individual map bring— When not— When Attorney General or Prosecuting Attorney may bring.
Motion for leave to file petition in Quo Warranto.
This motion is made for leave to file a petition in quo warranto to oust the defendant, who is the secretary of state, from exercising the duties and franchises of state supervisor of elections, under the act of April 18,1892 (89 Ohio Raws, 455), upon the ground that the provisions of that statute conferring upon the secretary of state, the powers and duties of supervisor of elections, is unconstitutional.
A.J. Thomas and H. R. Smith, for the motion.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Section 6764, of the Revised Statutes, provides that " A person claiming to be entitled to a public office unlawfully held and exercised by another may, by himself or an attorney at law bring an action therefor." We are unable to find, in the statute, any authority for the bringing of an action of quo warranto by or on the relation of a private individual except in the cases provided for in the section above mentioned.
Other actions in quo warranto must be commenced by and on the relation of the attorney-general, or a prosecuting attorney, who is required to commence such action only when directed by the governor, supreme court, or general assembly, or when upon complaint, or otherwise, he has good reason to believe that a case can be established by the proof. Revised Statutes, section 6762.
Treating the motion as an application to the court to direct the attorney-general to commence the action desired, the established rule is, that the court will exercise its power in that behalf, only "when something relating to the court or its business, renders it necessary or advisable." Thompson v. Watson, 48 Ohio St. 552.
The action sought by the motion does not come within that class of cases.
Motio?i overruled.