QUO WARRANTO, in English law, the name given to an ancient prerogative writ calling upon any person usurping any office, franchise, liberty or privilege belonging to the Crown, to show "by what warrant" he maintained his claim, the onus being on the defendant. It lay also for non-user or misuser of an office, etc. If the Crown succeeded, judgment of forfeiture or ousterle main was given against the defendant. (See OUSTER.) The pro cedure was regulated by statute as early as 1278 (the statute of Quo Warranto, 6 Edw. I. ch. I), which was superseded by the modern form of an information in the nature of a quo warranto exhibited on behalf of the Crown or a private person called the relator. The information will not be issued except by leave of the court on proper cause being shown. It lies where the office is of a public nature and created by statute, even though it is not an encroachment upon the prerogative of the Crown. Where the usurpation is of a municipal office the information is regulated by 9 Anne ch. 25 (1710. Such an information must, in the case of
boroughs within the Municipal CorporatiOns Act, 1882, be brought within 12 months after disqualification (s. 225) in the case of other boroughs, within six years after the defendant first took upon himself the office. Though nominally a criminal it has long been really a civil proceeding, and has recently been declared to be so.
In the United States, quo warranto is the proper remedy under the statutes of the various states to ascertain the right of a person to an office of a public nature, or one in a corporation. It also is used to test the validity of a franchise held by a municipality or a public service corporation. Some states have substituted by statute information in the nature of quo warranto and other remedies, and where such substitution has been made, quo warranto is improper.