TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. McNulty v. Porter

The State ex rel. McNulty v. Porter

State ex rel. McNulty v. Porter, 11 N.W. 715 (Iowa 1882)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 4, 1882
Judges
Day
Citations
11 N.W. 71558 Iowa 19
Cited by 15
Headnotes
1. Quo Warranto: dismissal of. . The relator by an action of quo warranto sought to be declared the lawful subdirector of the district township of Washington, and to oust defendant from the office. No fees attached to the office of subdirector. At the time of trial, the term of office in dispute having expired, the court dismissed the cause. Held, that the action of the court was right.
Summary
Appeal from, Webster District Gomt. This is an action of quo warra/nto, commenced in April, 1879, to determine the right of the relator to the office of subdirector, in subdistrict number 5, in the district township of Washington, in Webster county. The petition asks that the defendant be excluded from the office, and that the relator be declared the lawful subdirector of said subdistrict. The cause not being reached for trial at the August, 1879, term, was continued. At the March term, 1880, of the court, it was suggested to the court that the term of office in dispute had expired. The court thereupon dismissed the cause, and ordered that each party pay his own costs. The relator appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Day

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Day, J.

1. QUO WARANTO: dismissal of. The action of the court was right. The relator asks that he be adjudged and decreed to be the lawful sub-director, and that the defendant be ousted and excluded from the office. The term of office having expired, the court could not grant this relief. No fees attach to the office of subdirector, and hence neither party had' anything to gain or lose by further litigation. Courts are not organized for the purpose of determining mere abstractions. The court ought not to be required to spend its time in the accumulation of a bill of costs, lor no other purpose than that .of determining which party should pay them. As no vital question remained for determination, the further prosecution of the case would have been vexatious and unjust.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1882–1883: 11890–1891: 11896–1897: 21898–1899: 11908–1909: 21912–1913: 21916–1917: 21918–1919: 11926–1927: 11928–1929: 11930–1931: 118822026peak 1896 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Coiner v. Wickersham47 P. 421 (Wash. 1896)
  2. In re Kaeppler75 N.W. 253 (N.D. 1898)
  3. Cummings v. Eastman136 A. 810 (Me. 1927)
  4. State ex rel. Hartnett v. Powell70 N.W. 592 (Iowa 1897)
  5. Osterhous ex rel. Vander Veen v. Van Duren168 Mich. 464 (1912)
  6. People v. Muehe300 P. 829 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)

Most recent

  1. People v. Muehe300 P. 829 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
  2. Manning v. Heath221 N.W. 560 (Iowa 1928)
  3. Cummings v. Eastman136 A. 810 (Me. 1927)
  4. Karolussen v. Christianson187 Iowa 744 (1919)
  5. Independent School District v. Pennington181 Iowa 933 (1917)
  6. Hatz v. Board of Supervisors173 Iowa 366 (1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list