Court Opinion

ID: 9558178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:03:47.907791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:26.106211
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(concurring in the result) :
I concur in the result but for reasons other than stated in the main opinion. I consider it somewhat condones a detour from a clear, but perhaps ridiculous statute. But the statute is there with a clear 30-day interdiction that something must be done within the allotted time, otherwise the office is vacant. To say it does not mean what it plainly says is to indulge the luxury of judicial legislation, — not our prerogative nor that of any court, including the U. S. Supreme Court.
I think the main opinion is premature, unnecessary, and not authoritative or desirable at this time, since it determines the merit of this case, which is not at issue presently.
First: There has been no granting by this Court of the petition for the extraordinary writ of Quo Warranto, — a condition precedent to acting on the merits of the petition.1
Second: The very facts recited in the main opinion clearly indicate that this Court should not entertain the petition for the writ because of laches.2
Third: The petitioner seems to he chargeable with the same inattention to the statutes with which he charges the defendants, since he filed his cost bond a month and a half late. His correspondence with this Court does not indicate, nor is there anything in the record that would justify any other conclusion. It would seem, therefore, that the principle that he who seeks equity must do it is apropos here.
Fourth: The petitioner here seems to he persona non grata in filing this petition, since personally he has no interest in the offices he questions.3
Fifth: Having no interest in the offices he questions, and in light of the record in this case, it seems apparent that petitioner has some personal reason to oust from office the defendants who were chosen by the electorate in what has not been shown to be other than a fair election.
Sixth: There are erasures and substitutions of dates on the cost bond that belatedly was filed. These alterations have not been explained satisfactorily and petitioner’s correspondence anent thereto, directed to this Court, does not explain either the delay in filing or the date changes.
*380Quo Warranto is an ancient, extraordinary writ. He who seeks its employment must act with dispatch, show a personal interest in the office he seeks to challenge, follow the rules precisely for its invocation, present a case of considerable and substantial, not minor, concern,4 not bottomed on personal difference with one holding office.
I am convinced that to grant the petition for this high writ under the circumstances of this case would lend this Court’s blessing to a watering down of and aiding in the deterioration of the writ’s traditional and historic dignity, where but sparingly it has been used, and only in cases of public moment, where, without its employment, a great injustice might ensue. I think the instant case does not fall within the area contemplated by the use of this ancient writ. Apparently the only person suffering from the defendants’ belated publications of their minuscule campaign expenses is the petitioner, — not the majority of the people of Logan that voted for them. The petition should be rejected, if, for no other reason than as an adjunct of the doctrine de minimis.
CALLISTER, J., concurs - in the views expressed in the opinion of HENRIOD, C. J.

. 44 Am.Jur. 138, Quo Warranto, Sec. 69.

. 44 Am.Jur. 132, Quo Warranto, Sec. 63.

. 44 Am.Jur. 143-4, Quo Warranto, Secs. 74 and 76.

. 44 Am.Jur. 138, Quo Warranto, Sec. 69.