Foote v. Myers
Foote v. Myers
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The' demurrer to the plea in abatement should have been sustained. The two actions are not the same. One is the suit of a private person, instituted by- himself, and subject to his control; the other is the petition of the district attorney of the Ninth Judicial District, in a matter affecting the public interest, and, although it is in the name of the officer, when it should have been by the State on his relation, and although the name of Chalmers, as relator, is used, it being instituted by the district attorney, is the suit of the State, and is independent of the suit of Chalmers, although both may be intended and expected to enure to his benefit.
The judgment is reversed ; the demurrer to the plea is sustained.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- H. S. Foote, District Attorney, ex rel. v. H. C. Myers, Secretary of State
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Mandamus. Proceeding by district attorney. Proceeding by individual. Both for same purpose. Effect. The existence of a proceeding by 0., individually, for a mandamus against the Secretary of State, is not a bar to the prosecution of a suit for mandamus, by the district attorney, on the relation of 0. against the Secretary of State, though both proceedings be founded upon the same state of case and seek the accomplishment of the same purpose. And it makes no difference, in this respect, that the latter proceeding is brought in the name of the district attorney on the relation of 0., when it should have been in the name of the State on the relation of the district attorney.