Page:State v. Johnson.pdf/2

282 Rh   Montgomery, Attorney General, Yonley and E. W. Gantt, for the State.

Watkins & Rose, Rice & Benjamin, Gallagher, Newton & Hempstead, and English, Gantt & English, for respondent

Statement of the Case
MC, C.J.

On the 14th of December, 1870, at the suggestion of the attorney general, a rule to show cause was awarded against the respondent, why a writ of quo warranto should not be issued against him.

On the 23d of January, a response was filed to the rule, and a demurrer to the suggestion or information of the attorney general. The first cause of demurrer is, that this court has no jurisdiction; the second is, that the information or suggestion shows no sufficient cause of action.

The question of jurisdiction is substantially settled in the case of Price & Barton v. Page, treasurer, 25 Ark., 557. While it is conceded that, in the case referred to, the application was for a mandamus, the determination of the power to issue that writ, by virtue of the original jurisdiction of this court, necessarily disposed of the jurisdiction of the court in cases of quo warranto. And, in exercising the jurisdiction, we do not stand alone; Judges R, D, L, J, O, C, P, S, C and W, men whose names are familiar to the legal fraternity of the state and whose erudition and legal lore are second to none who have succeeded them, held, for a period of more than fifteen years, after the adoption of the Constitution of 1836, that this court had original jurisdiction in mandamus and quo warranto.

From 1851 to 1864, this court held that it had no original jurisdiction in mandamus and quo warranto. In 1864, Judges P, E and C reversed the opinion of 1851, and followed in the wake of Judges R, D, J, O, C, P, S, C and W.