Central Reporter; All Cases Determined in the Courts of Last Resort, as Follows

Central Reporter; All Cases Determined in the Courts of Last Resort, as Follows : New York ... New Jersey ... Pennsylvania ... Delaware ... Maryland ... District of Columbia Volume 2

By (author) 

List price: US$26.74

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 edition. Excerpt: ...not only upon the right of the defendant but also upon the right of the party averted to be entitled. 2 R. S. 582, 31. And in case the right of the claimant was established by the judgment, he was authorized upon film a suggestion to recover the damages. sustained day reason of the usurpation of the defendant. 34. The courts held that they would not at the instance of a person out of possession of an offlce, try the title to the oiilce by mandamus or other proceedings. but would leave him to his remedv by information; and it has been said in several cases that the title could only be tried in that proceeding. People v. Stevens, 5 Hill, 616; People v. Vail, 20 VVend. 12; People v. Ferrt'a, . 76 N. Y. 826; People v. Lane, 55 Id. 217. These cases (proceed upon an intelligible principle. It woul be productive of great inconvenience if a person out of possession was permitted, before ousting the person in possession and establishing his own title by a direct proceeding, to maintain an action atgainst the intruder for the salary, the result 0 which would neither put the intruder out of nor the plaintiff into the office, and to have the title to tie office decided in a collateral proceeding in which the people were not represented. But in this case the rlojure oflicer has been restored to the possession from which he was wrongfully ejected. It has been judically determined in a proceeding in behal of the People, that his right to the ofiice was never legally interrupted. he defendant was not in possession when the action was commenced, and an action under the Code to eject him from the office could not be maintained. Vhere the further prosecution of the proceeding by quo u-a1-ranto is necessary to accomplish a purpose beyond the...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 922 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 46mm | 1,610g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236911563
  • 9781236911568