Minnesota Supreme Court, 1894

State ex rel. Whitcomb v. Lockerby

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 11, 1894 · Canty, Collins, Took

57 Minn. 411; 59 N.W. 495; 1894 Minn. LEXIS 314 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Carman N. Smith, for Whitcomb, et al., Francis G. Burke, for Lockerby, et al.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1905, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Young v. Village of Kent (Minn. 1905)
State ex rel. Whitcomb v. Otis (Minn. 1894)
Gates v. Ege (Minn. 1894)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Canty, J.

This is an application for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto, by some of the alleged stockholders and officers of a private corporation, to try the right of some others to hold certain offices in the corporation. In the case of State v. Dowlan, 33 Minn. 538, (24 N.W. 188,) it was held by this court: “We are agreed that the granting of leave to file an information, especially upon the application of a private person, is within the discretion of the court, and that leave ought not to be granted where the law furnishes another remedy, unless under special and exceptional circumstances.” 1878 G. S. ch. 79, furnishes another remedy, and there are no such special or exceptional circumstances in this case as would take it out of the rule.

Neither do we wish to be understood as holding that there is no other such remedy, except that provided by chapter 79, which must-be brought by the attorney general. 1851 R. S. ch. 80, § 1 abolished the writ of quo warranto, and provided the remedy now found in said chapter 79. 3866 G. S. ch. 122 repealed the [Revision of 1853, but re-enacted all of said chapter 80 thereof, except the first section, which abolished quo warranto. Whether this did not revive the common-law writ of quo warranto, as a writ to be issued by the District Court, it is not necessary here to decide.

Application denied.

Collins, J., absent, took no part.

(Opinion published 59 N. W. 495.)

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.