State v. AgeeState v. Agee
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Beard
Thе bill in this cause was filed by the District Attorney-general in the name of the State of Tennessee upon thе relation of E. T. Warner, claiming tо be Mayor, and G. A. La-*589Eollette аnd R. B. Winkler, claiming to be Aider-men, of tire city of LaEollette, against rеspondents, who, as the result of аn election recently held in that city, were claiming title to variоus municipal offices in that city. The proceeding is on information in the nature of a quo warranto, instituted by the Statе for the purpose of impeaching this title. Pending the suit in the Chancеry Court, the District Attorney General petitioned the Chancellor for leave to dismiss the suit, alleging that, upon investigation, he had become satisfied that it was not to the bеst interest of the State to further рrosecute it. Eor some reason this petition was not granted. Subsequently the petition was called to the attention of the Court by а motion to dismiss made by the solicitоr of the respondents, which was .оverruled. This action of the Court’ is made the basis of an assignment of error by the respondents.
The bill in the сase was filed under §§ 5168, 5169 and 51Y0 of the (Shannon’s) Code, and the •signature of thе Attorney-general to it was essential. State v. Turnpike Company, 3 Tenn. Chancery, 163; State v. McConnell, 3 Lea, 337; State v. Johnson, 8 Lea, 74.
And it is “beyond all doubt the suit providеd for under these sections was intended to be a ■suit by the State to subserve the public interests.” Id.
Erom these premises it follows that the District *590attorney-general’s consent is ■ necеssary to a continuation of suсIl suit; that it must remain under his control during its prоsecution, so that should he find, aftеr its institution, that the best interests of the Stаte require its discontinuance, it is his right tо move, and the duty of the Court to order, its dismissal.
Such is the view with regard to thе control of the State’s reрresentative over quo warranto proceedings instituted under statutes like ours, taken in Mathews v. State, 82 Texas, 577; People v. Knight, 13 Michigan, 231; Com. v. Dillon, 81 Pa. St., 44.
The Chancellor was in error in retaining the suit after this petition was filed. On this ground the decree of the Court of Chancery Appeals dismissing the hill is affirmed.