12 Kan. 309 | Kan. | 1873
This seems to be intended as an action in the nature of quo warranto, with a prayer for an injunction as an ancillary proceeding. A temporary injunction was granted by the judge of the court below, restraining the defendants Durkee, Eastland, Kinney, Dunlap, Landis, Arbuckle, and Pratt from exercising the duties of or interfering with certain county offices of Russell county, which offices these defendants claimed respectively to hold and fill. After-*wards said temporary injunction was dissolved; and the state, as plaintiff in error, now brings the case to this court, and asks to have the order of said judge dissolving said injunction reversed. A temporary injunction was also granted against other persons, but as it was not dissolved no question is raised concerning it in this court.
The order of the district judge must be affirmed, in whatever aspect we may view this case. Whether this is quo ivarranto or a bill in equity, and whether the petition states facts sufficient to constitute a cause* of action or not, still the order of the judge dissolving said injunction was correct. The petition was sworn to, and made both a petition and an affidavit; and this was the only evidence presented to said district judge. Eor the purposes of this case we shall consider that the evidence sufficiently showed that J. W. Dollison, 0. W. Harshbaugh, John M. Bradbury, James Sellers, John Eritts, A. L. Yoorhis, and R. V. Kennedy were the county officers de jure for the offices which the above-named defendants claimed; but this may be questioned. But as to who were the officers de facto it is difficult to tell from the allegations of said petition. The allegations of the
The order of the judge of the court below dissolving said injunction is affirmed.
