McAllen v. Rhodes

Citations

• 65 Tex. 348
• 1886 Tex. LEXIS 665

Syllabus

<p>1. SUIT FOR OFFICE—JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURT—PROCEEDING BY QUO WARRANTO. The district court has jurisdiction of a suit for the recovery of an office, if its value is over $500, and an information in the nature of a quo -warranto, filed by the proper officer at the instance of a private relator, as prescribed by the act of July 21, 1879, is an appropriate proceeding, and may be used, not only to oust the intruder, but also to adjudge to the relator the possession of the office. (Citing State v. Owens, 63 Tex. 261, and Williamson v. Lane, 52 Tex. 335.)</p> <p>2. Same—Remedy by quo warranto cumulative—Right may be determined in an ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION—STATE NOT A NECESSARY PARTY—The remedy by quo -warranto is, however, not the only method that may be pursued for the recovery of an office, nor does the act of July 21, 1879, contemplate that it should be; but the right to an office may be determined in an ordinary civil suit brought directly by the claimant against the party in possession, without resort to an information in the nature of a quo -warranto, and the state is not a necessary party to such suit.</p> <p>3. Same—Injunction—In a suit between private parties for the recovery of an office, the claimant is not entitled to an injunction restraining the usurper from discharging the duties of the office or enjoying its emoluments, during the pendency of the suit.</p>