Section 14.13 Nature of Remedies (Exclusiveness)

• Library: App Ct Prac 2015 Supp

D. (§14.13) Nature of Remedies (Exclusiveness)

When the subject matter of the quo warranto proceeding is private in nature and when the matters and acts complained of are civil rather than criminal, the court, by the exercise of its wide discretion, will not grant relief in quo warranto when the private party can secure adequate protection of his or her rights by another remedy. See State ex inf. Crow v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 75 S.W. 776 (Mo. banc 1903); State ex rel. Crow v. Flemming, 59 S.W. 118 (Mo. banc 1900); State ex rel. Turner v. Fitzgerald, 44 Mo. 425 (1869); State ex rel. McIlhany v. Stewart, 32 Mo. 379 (1862).

When the action is prosecuted for the protection of the public by ex officio action, the remedy of quo warranto is not only available but is the exclusive remedy. On the other hand, the court will not allow the use of this remedy to settle private controversy when there is any other remedy available. When the action is brought in the interest of private persons, the court will exercise its discretion to grant relief by judgment of ouster only when the public good will be enhanced by such action. State ex rel. Ponath v. Hamilton, 240 S.W. 445 (Mo. banc 1922).

Quo warranto is not a writ of review; it is not a substitute for an appeal. It will not lie to correct an erroneous action taken in the proper exercise of a jurisdiction lawfully possessed, but will lie only to...