QUO WARRANTO (Lat. by what authori ty). In Practice. The name of a writ (and also of the whole pleading) by which the gov ernment commences an action to recover an office or franchise from the person or cor poration in possession of it.
The writ commands the sheriff to summon the defendant to appear before the court to which it is returnable, to show (quo war rarito) by what authority he claims the of fice or franchise. It was a writ of right, a civil remedy to try the mere right to the fran chise or office, where the person in possession never had a right to it or has forfeited it by neglect or abuse ; 3 Bla. Com. 262, 263.
The action of quo warranto was prescribed by the Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I., and is a limitation upon the royal prerogative. Before this statute, the king, by virtue of his prerogative, sent commissions over the king dom to inquire into the right to all fran chises, quo jure quove n,onvine retinent, etc. ; and, as they were grants from the crown, if those in possession of them could not show a charter, the franchises were seiz ed into the king's hands without any judicial proceeding. Like all other original civil writs, the writ of quo warranto issued out of chancery, and was returnable alternative ly before the king's bench or justices in eyre; Co. 2d Inst. 277, 494; 2 Term 549. ' • Originally it was a proceeding of a criminal nature by the attorney general to punish usurpation of office ; State v. Law rence, 38 Mo. 535. This writ fell into disuse and its place was taken at an early date by an information in the nature of a quo war ranto.
The statute of 9 Anne was passed to make the practice more speedy and effective. The writ could issue by leave of court at the re lation of any person or persons desiring to sue or prosecute the same. The law is now chiefly statutory. Statutes referring to "quo warranto" are usually held to include in formation in the nature of quo warranto; State v. Gleason, 12 Fla. 190; State v. R. Co., 34 Wis. 197 (so of a state constitution ; State v. Inv. Ass'n, 142 Mo. 325, 41 S. W. 916); but it has been held otherwise ; State v. Ins. Co., 8 Mo. 330.
An information in the nature of quo war ranto, though in form a criminal ; see Rob inson v. Jones, 14 Fla. 256 ; is in substance a civil, proceeding, to try the mere right to the franchise or office; 3 Bla. Com. 263; Corn. v. County Com'rs, 1 S. & R. (Pa.) 382 ; 2 Kent 312; Thompson v. People, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 537, 591; but see People v. R. Co., 13 Ill. 66.
It is a matter of sound discretion to grant or refuse a writ of Two ' warrant°, or an in formation in the nature thereof ; Lynch v. Martin, 6 Roust. (Del.) 487; Com. v. Reigart, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 216; People v. Keeling, 4 Colo. 129; but it has been held that this ab solute discretion is only when a mere public right is asserted and that when a private right is involved, as when one is claiming an office, he is entitled to the writ as a matter of right ; State v. Burnett, 2 Ala. 140; but when the information has been allowed to be filed, the court has no more power to dis pense with the law applicable, or to refuse to enforce it, on the ground that the case is unimportant or impolitic, than in any other case ; when the information is filed, all the discretionary power of the court is expended; State v. Brown, 5 R. I. 1.
A statutory election contest and quo war ranto proceedings are accumulative remedies unless it is otherwise provided by statute ; State v. Elliott, 117 Ala. 150, 23 South. 124.
A constitutional provision that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, does not guarantee the right of trial by jury in quo warranto proceedings; State v. Doherty, 16 Wash. 382, 47 Pac. 958, 58 Am. St. Rep. 39.
If the proceedings refer to the usurpation of the franchises of a municipal corpora tion, the right to file the information is in the state, at the discretion of the attorney general ; Robinson v. Jones, 14 Fla. 256 ; see Rice\ v. Bk., 126 Mass. 300; Gibbs v. Somers Point, 49 N. J. L. 515, 10 Atl. 377 ; not of citi zens; id. Individuals cannot take proceed ings to dissolve a corporation ; Centre & K. T. P. R. Co. v. McConaby, 16 S. & R. (Pa.) 144; but in regard to the election of a cor porate officer, the writ may issue at the suit of the attorney-general or of any person in terested; State v. Turnpike Co., 21 N. J. L. 9; Murphy v. Bank, 20 Pa. 415; but a pri vate citizen must have some interest ; State v. Vail, 53 Mo. 97. See Chicago v. People, 80 Ill. 496 ; State v. Martin, 46 Conn. 479. A stock-holder, whose votes were wrongly re jected at a corporate election, is the proper party to institute proceedings of quo war ranto against the officers who claimed to have been elected, though the petitioner was at the same time elected to an office and his title was in dispute ; Com. v. Stevens, 168 Pa. 582, 32 Atl. 111. The attorney-general may act without leave of court; Com. v. Walter, 83 Pa. 105, 24 Am. Rep. 154 ; Atty. Gen. v. R. Co., 38 N. J. L. 282 ; State v. Gleason, 12 Fla. 190; but a private relator may not ; Coin. v. Arrison, 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 127, 16 Am. Dec. 531. Leave is granted on a petition or motion with affidavits, upon which a rule to show cause is granted ; People v. Waite, 70 Ill. 25. The writ lies against the corporate body, if it is to restrain a usurpation.; Mil ler v. Ins. Co., 50 Mo. '56; or enforce a forfei ture ; State v. Barron, 57 N. H. 498 ; but if it is to inquire whether a corporation has been legally organized, the writ lies against the individuals ; People v. R. Co., 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 113, 30 Am. Dec. 34. Whether a cor poration de facto is also one de jure can be determined only in quo warranto; Samuels v. Drainage Com'rs, 125 Ill. 536, 17 N. E. 829. Corporators and corporate officers need not be made parties; New Orleans 11 R. Co. v. Louisiana, 180 U. S. 320, 21 Sup. Ct. 378, 45 L. Ed. In New York a statutory action in the nature of a quo warra'nto has been sub stituted. Code Civ. Proc. § 1983. This is a civil writ of legal, not equitable, cogni zance ; People v. elute, 52 N. Y. 576. So in other states it is subject to the rules strictly applicable to civil proceedings ; State v. Price, 50 Ala. 568 ; State v. Kupferle, 44 Mo. 154, 100 Am. Dec. 265. The terms "quo warranto" and "information in the nature of a quo warranto" are synonymous ; State v. R. Co., 34 Wisc. 197; contra, State v. Stone, 25 Mo. 555 ; State v. Johnson, 26 Ark. 281.