Definition
An information in the nature of a quo warranto is a civil proceeding brought by a government officer — typically an attorney general or prosecuting attorney — to challenge the right of a person or entity to hold a public office, exercise a franchise, or act under a corporate charter. It is the modern procedural successor to the ancient common law writ of quo warranto, retaining the same substantive purpose: compelling the respondent to show by what authority ("by what warrant") they claim to exercise a public right or privilege.
Where the original writ of quo warranto fell into disuse, courts and legislatures authorized the filing of an information — a formal accusatory pleading — that accomplished the same object without reviving the archaic writ itself. The information in the nature of a quo warranto is therefore not technically a writ; it is a pleading that triggers a proceeding functionally equivalent to one.
The proceeding tests the legal title to a position or franchise, not the wisdom or quality of how it is exercised. A successful proceeding results in ouster — removal of the respondent from the office or forfeiture of the franchise — rather than damages or injunctive relief.
Common Confusion
INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF A QUO WARRANTO vs. QUO WARRANTO (WRIT): The distinction matters in historical research. The original writ of quo warranto was a prerogative writ issuing from the Crown (or, in American practice, the sovereign government) commanding a respondent to appear and justify their claim. By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the writ was largely replaced in practice by the information in the nature of a quo warranto, which is a pleading filed by the appropriate public officer. Many courts and commentators use "quo warranto" loosely to refer to both forms. Researchers reading older American cases must determine which procedural vehicle was actually used, as the distinction could affect standing, parties, and available relief.
INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF A QUO WARRANTO vs. MANDAMUS: Both are extraordinary proceedings involving public offices, and both may be initiated by an attorney general. Mandamus compels an officer to perform a duty; quo warranto proceedings challenge whether the respondent has lawful authority to hold the office at all. Confusion between the two appears in older pleading practice and in general encyclopedia discussions of extraordinary remedies.
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research trap is terminological compression. Historical sources — including cases, treatises, and the Rapalje & Lawrence dictionary itself — often cite proceedings under the shorthand "quo warranto" without specifying whether the proceeding was by original writ or by information in the nature of a quo warranto. In American jurisdictions after the early nineteenth century, the information form is almost always what is meant, but this cannot be assumed for colonial-era materials or for English authorities.
The phrase "who may file" signals a recurring and contested issue in historical corpus materials: standing to bring the proceeding. At common law, quo warranto was a prerogative remedy available only to the Crown or its representative. In American states, statutes expanded or restricted standing in varying ways — some permitting private relators to file informations through or alongside the attorney general, others limiting the proceeding strictly to public officers. The Missouri case referenced in Rapalje & Lawrence (53 Mo. 97) concerns exactly this question of who possesses the authority to initiate the proceeding, and it is representative of a class of nineteenth-century American cases working out the limits of the English common law model in republican government structures.
Researchers should also note that many states eventually codified quo warranto proceedings in civil procedure codes or special statutes, sometimes abandoning the phrase "information in the nature of a quo warranto" entirely in favor of statutory language such as "action in the nature of quo warranto" or simply "quo warranto action." This means the same substantive remedy may appear under different procedural labels depending on the jurisdiction and era.
Corporate charter challenges are another corpus connection. A significant body of nineteenth-century quo warranto informations targeted corporations acting beyond their charter authority (ultra vires) or holding franchises without valid legal grant. This use overlaps substantially with corporate law research and franchise law research, and the same procedural vehicle — the information in the nature of a quo warranto — appears in both public-office and corporate-franchise contexts.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence's treatment is minimal and structural: the entry appears under WARRANTO and cross-references a Missouri case on the question of who may file, without providing a full definition. This is characteristic of the dictionary's approach to procedural terms — it assumes the practitioner knows the general contours of the remedy and focuses on contested subsidiary questions, here the standing issue.
What Rapalje & Lawrence does not address, and what researchers must supply from other sources, is the historical distinction between the writ and the information, the development of relator practice, and the statutory displacement of the common law proceeding in most American jurisdictions. The single Missouri citation is a practical pointer to live litigation questions of the era rather than a doctrinal explanation of the remedy itself.
Jurisdictional Note
Most American states have replaced or supplemented the common law information in the nature of a quo warranto with statutory quo warranto proceedings. Standing rules, the role of private relators, and available relief vary significantly by state. Federal courts have largely declined to exercise quo warranto jurisdiction over state officers, and the federal use of the proceeding is confined to challenges involving federal offices or corporations chartered under federal law.