Definition
The "nature of a quo warranto" refers to the legal character and procedural identity of the writ or proceeding known as quo warranto — that is, what kind of legal action it is, how it functions, and what it accomplishes. Understanding the nature of the action matters because quo warranto has existed in two distinct procedural forms across its history: as a writ (a formal court command issued in the Crown's or state's name) and as an information in the nature of a quo warranto (a pleading-based proceeding that replaced the original writ in most courts of record). Both forms serve the same substantive purpose — demanding that a person or corporation show by what authority (Latin: quo warranto, "by what warrant") they exercise a public office, franchise, or liberty — but they differ in origin, procedure, and availability.
In its classic form, the quo warranto writ was a prerogative remedy: the sovereign's direct challenge to an unauthorized exercise of public power. Over time, the writ itself fell into disuse and was replaced in English practice by the information in the nature of a quo warranto, filed by the Attorney General or a relator. American jurisdictions largely adopted the information form, though some retained or codified writ procedure. Modern practice in many states has further converted the proceeding into a statutory civil action, shedding its prerogative character while preserving its function.
Common Confusion
NATURE OF A QUO WARRANTO vs. QUO WARRANTO WRIT vs. INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF A QUO WARRANTO: These three phrases are frequently used interchangeably in older authorities, which causes real confusion in research. The writ of quo warranto is the original royal command form. The information in the nature of a quo warranto is a later pleading substitute that mimics the writ's function without being a writ. The "nature of a quo warranto" as a phrase appears in treatises and digests specifically to explain that an information filed under this doctrine carries the same legal character and achieves the same ends as the original writ — it is a term of classification, not a separate remedy.
Why It Matters in Research
The phrase "nature of a quo warranto" is primarily a doctrinal label that appears in older digests, encyclopedias, and treatises when authors need to explain the procedural identity of the information form. Researchers encountering it in historical sources should understand it as a bridge concept — writers using this phrase are typically clarifying that the proceeding in question, though called an information, has the same scope, limitations, and legal effect as the original prerogative writ.
Navigational traps abound. First, Rapalje & Lawrence's entry is a pure cross-reference, directing readers to INFORMATION, §17 and QUO WARRANTO — meaning the substantive content on this topic is distributed across multiple headings in that dictionary, not consolidated under this phrase. Researchers relying on alphabetical browsing alone will miss the core material. Second, the distinction between the writ form and the information form carries real procedural consequences in historical sources: who could bring the action, whether leave of court was required, and what defenses were available all varied depending on which form was operative. Third, American jurisdictions diverged significantly from English practice, and many 19th-century American authorities use English precedents on the nature of the action without flagging that the procedural vehicle had already changed.
For corpus research, this term signals that the surrounding text is likely engaged in definitional or taxonomic work — explaining what quo warranto is before analyzing how it operates. It tends to appear at the outset of treatise chapters, encyclopedia articles, and judicial opinions that must first establish the character of the proceeding before reaching the merits.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence (1883) offers no substantive definition at this heading, instead cross-referencing INFORMATION, §17 and QUO WARRANTO. This is itself informative: it confirms that by the late 19th century, the "nature" question was understood as settled enough to be handled by cross-reference rather than fresh analysis, and that the information form had become the primary procedural vehicle in American practice. The cross-reference structure also reflects the period's tendency to treat quo warranto doctrine as a unified body despite its dual procedural lineage.
Other historical authorities — including Blackstone's Commentaries and early American treatises by writers such as High on Extraordinary Legal Remedies — address the nature of the action more fully, distinguishing the ancient writ from the information substitute and tracing how English statutes (particularly the Act of 9 Anne, c. 20) shifted practice toward the information form. American courts and commentators of the 19th century largely followed this account while adapting it to republican rather than monarchical assumptions about the source of governmental authority being challenged.
What historical sources often miss or understate: the extent to which the "nature" of quo warranto proceedings was genuinely contested when applied to private corporations, where the prerogative rationale was weaker, and the degree to which statutory modernization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries changed the proceeding's character without always changing its name.
Jurisdictional Note
The procedural form and availability of quo warranto varies considerably across American jurisdictions. Some states retain the information in the nature of a quo warranto as a distinct prerogative proceeding; others have replaced it entirely with a statutory civil action governed by rules of civil procedure. Federal practice largely abandoned the writ form, and federal quo warranto proceedings are narrowly available. Researchers must confirm which form is operative in the relevant jurisdiction before applying historical authority.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia — Quo Warranto; Extraordinary Writs; Prerogative Remedies