Opinion ID: 1879074
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings in the Name of the State

Text: Judge Smith also challenges the residents' action on the ground that it was not brought upon their relation in the name of the State. Although the State of Alabama is a nominal party in quo warranto proceedings, Baxter v. State ex rel. Metcalf 243 Ala. 120, 9 So.2d 119 (1942), the petition must be brought in the name of the State. This is so, not only because of the history and purpose of the quo warranto proceeding, but because, among other things, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-6-595, expressly provides: Whenever an action is commenced under the provisions of this article on the information of any person, his name must be joined as plaintiff with the state. (Emphasis added.) These requirements follow logically from the fact that, historically, it was required that the proceeding should be instituted in the King's own right, in his name, and at the instance of his legal representative, the Attorney General. State ex rel. Paugh v. Bradley, 231 Mont. 46, 49, 753 P.2d 857, 859 (1988). However, because private individuals frequently had a stronger interest in initiating quo warranto proceedings than did the government, especially in connection with offices in corporate bodies, there grew up a class of informations in the nature of quo warranto which were in fact initiated by private relators. Id. In Alabama, [t]he right of the citizen to use the name of the state in prosecuting an information in the nature of quo warranto ... is purely statutory. Ex parte Talley, 238 Ala. 527, 529, 192 So. 271, 271 (1939). The writ retains its public flavor in that the issuance thereof must serve the public good, although it may also incidentally benefit the person or persons that institute the action. Ex parte Sierra Club, 674 So.2d 54, 57 (Ala. 1995) (emphasis added). Thus, a quo warranto action may not be prosecuted, as the residents attempt to do, solely in the name of the relator.