QUO WARRANTO
quo warranto (kwoh w<<schwa>>-ran-toh also kwoh wahr-<<schwa>>n-toh). [Law Latin
“by what authority”] 1. A common-law writ used to inquire into the authority by which a public
office is held or a franchise is claimed. — Also termed writ of quo warranto. [Cases: Quo
Warranto 9. C.J.S. Quo Warranto §§ 14, 16–20.] 2. An action by which the state seeks to revoke
a corporation’s charter. • The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings for
quo warranto “to the extent that the practice in such proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the
United States and has therefore conformed to the practice in civil actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(2).
[Cases: Quo Warranto 15. C.J.S. Quo Warranto §§ 30–33.]
“There are two modes of proceeding judicially to ascertain and enforce the forfeiture of a
charter for default or abuse of power. The one is by scire facias; and that process is proper where
there is a legal existing body, capable of acting, but who have abused their power. The other mode
is by information in the nature of a quo warranto; which is in form a criminal, and in its nature a
civil remedy; and that proceeding applies where there is a body corporate de facto only, but who
take upon themselves to act, though, from some defect in their constitution, they cannot legally
exercise their powers. Both these modes of proceeding are at the instance of and on behalf of the
government. The state must be a party to the prosecution, for the judgment is that the parties be
ousted, and the franchises seised into the hands of the government.” 2 James Kent, Commentaries
on American Law *313 (George Comstock ed., 11th ed. 1866).
“Quo warranto means ‘by what warrant?’ — or authority? — and was a proceeding to inquire
whether authority existed to justify or authorize certain acts of a public character or interest.
Originally the proceeding of quo warranto was a criminal one instituted by the crown, the purpose
of which was to find out, in the course of a formal inquiry, whether or not persons or corporations
were exercising a privilege or franchise illegally, or if persons who had no right to do so were
occupying some public office. If it were found that the person or corporation was in fact illegally
interfering with the prerogative power of the crown, or was in fact doing some other illegal act, it
was ousted from the illegal practice or office. Accordingly, it can be seen at once that the
proceeding on quo warranto was not one to be used by private parties in the conduct of ordinary
litigation.” Charles Herman Kinnane, A First Book on Anglo-American Law 662 (2d ed. 1952). [Blacks Law 8th]