State v. Pan American Co.

Citations

• 21 Del. 391
• 5 Penne. 391
• 61 A. 398
• 1905 Del. LEXIS 31

Syllabus

<p>Mandamus; Against Whom—Unnecessary Party—Not Fatal— By-Laws—Denial by Inference—Return—Alternative Writ; Sufficiency of—Writ; When Granted; For What Purpose—Prayer.</p> <p>1. It is a well settled rule in the law of mandamus that the peremptory writ should be issued against the person or persons who have the power to perform the duty commanded; but it is also well settled, and in this State, that the joining of some other party will not invalidate the writ.</p> <p>2. Where the right which the relator seeks to enforce by writ of mandamus is based upon a by-law of the respondent company, set out in the alternative writ, it is not sufficient for the respondent to deny its existence argumentatively or inferentially, by alleging the existence of an apparently inconsistent by-law at the time of the filing of the return. It is well settled that an argumentative return in mandamus, like any other argumentative pleading, is bad.</p> <p>3. Allegations contained in the alternative writ held sufficient to entitle the relator to the issuance of the peremptory writ.</p> <p>4. The peremptory writ of mandamus should not be granted for speculative purposes or to gratify mere idle curiosity, and the purpose for which it is asked must be a proper and reasonable one. The interest which the relator seeks to protect must be such as to warrant and justify the remedy he invokes.</p> <p>5. How general and comprehensive may the prayer for relief be ?</p>