Judges: ELLIS, J. —
Attorneys: W. F. Way and Carroll R. Runyon and Lewis T. Wray, for Relator;
S. Henry Harris and Raney H. Martin, for Respondent.
Filed: Mar. 06, 1934
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The City of St. Petersburg seeks by means of a writ of quo warranto based upon a petition signed in its name by its attorneys to test the authority by which R. H. Noel exercises the powers and functions of Chief of Police of the city. In the petition the city was not joined by the Attorney General of the State, who refused an application by the city to him to allow the information to be brought in his name as Attorney General. Upon the petition being presented to this Court it caused a rule nisi
Summary: The City of St. Petersburg seeks by means of a writ of quo warranto based upon a petition signed in its name by its attorneys to test the authority by which R. H. Noel exercises the powers and functions of Chief of Police of the city. In the petition the city was not joined by the Attorney General of the State, who refused an application by the city to him to allow the information to be brought in his name as Attorney General. Upon the petition being presented to this Court it caused a rule nisi ..
More
While I concur in most that is said by Mr. Justice ELLIS, I doubt if Section 5447, C. G. L., can be applied to a city. I think, however, that without that statute, the city, under the broad general principles relating to this remedy, can resort to it in such a case as this. My views of the general subject are stated in State v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563, 109 So. 2d 473, and State v. City of Stuart, 120 So. 2d 335.
