TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dobbs v. Stauffer

L. D. Dobbs v. H. O. Stauffer, Director, and H. E. Dewey, Clerk of School District No. 64, Marshall County

Dobbs v. Stauffer, 24 Kan. 127 (1880)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1880
Citations
24 Kan. 127
Summary
Original Proceedings in Mandamus. Action brought by plaintiffs to compel defendants, who are members of the school board of School District No. 64, Marshall county, Kansas, to rescind an order made by them September 11th, 1879, rescinding an order made by the former school boavd, adopting Cowperthwait & Co.’s school publications for use in the district school; and also to compel them to readopt said publications, and reintroduce them into the school. The parties plaintiff are L. D. Dobbs, who alleges that he is agent for Cowperthwait & Co.’s publications for the state of Kansas; Wm. Thompson, who is the local agent of said Dobbs to sell said publications; Mary J. Thompson and E. E. Benedict, resident tax-payers in said district; and eleven minor children, represented by their parents — Wm. Thompson, A. J. Palmer, Wm. H. Lea, and E. F. Benedict, as next friends' — and who, it is alleged, are debarred of the privileges of the school in said district by reason of the action of defendants. The alternative writ of mandamus was allowed February 5th, 1880, and on the return day, February 24th, 1880, the defendants filed a motion to quash, for various reasons: among others, because— 1st. There is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff. 2d. The said alternative writ of mandamus does not show that any demand has ever been made upon said defendants, or either of them, to do or perform the acts required in said writ. 3d. There is no identity of interest shown in said alternative writ to exist between said plaintiffs. 4th. The said alternative writ of mandamus does not state facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to the relief sought for.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam:

The writ in this ease is fatally defective in failing to show that a demand has been made on the defendants, to do the thing sought by this proceeding to compel them to dó. A demand and refusal are prerequisites to the institution of such proceedings. (The State v. Carney, 3 Kas. 88 .)

Again, the several plaintiffs have no identity of interest. Indeed, if any suit can be maintained by the plaintiffs, each plaintiff' can sue alone, and the others are not necessary parties. In whatever aspect we may view the case, the plaintiffs have no joint action. (Hudson v. Comm’rs of Atchison Co., 12 Kas. 140 .)

The motion of defendants to quash the alternative writ will be sustained, and the action dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1883–1884: 11911–1912: 11917–1918: 21919–1920: 11939–1940: 118832026peak 1917 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Stannard165 P. 566 (Or. 1917)
  2. State ex rel. Dawson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad118 P. 872 (Kan. 1911) · Dissent
  3. Beeler & Campbell Supply Co. v. Warren86 P.2d 482 (Kan. 1939)
  4. Omaha Crockery Co. v. Cleaver180 P. 273 (Kan. 1919)
  5. McGrath v. City of Newton29 Kan. 364 (1883)
  6. People ex rel. Bailey v. City of Chicago211 Ill. App. 418 (1918)

Most recent

  1. Beeler & Campbell Supply Co. v. Warren86 P.2d 482 (Kan. 1939)
  2. Omaha Crockery Co. v. Cleaver180 P. 273 (Kan. 1919)
  3. People ex rel. Bailey v. City of Chicago211 Ill. App. 418 (1918)
  4. State v. Stannard165 P. 566 (Or. 1917)
  5. State ex rel. Dawson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad118 P. 872 (Kan. 1911) · Dissent
  6. McGrath v. City of Newton29 Kan. 364 (1883)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hudson v. Commiss'rs of Atchison Cnty., 12 Kan. 140 (1873) 20
State ex rel. Price v. Carney, 3 Kan. 88 (1864) 9

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