#### Lucy N. Wight et als., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The People, &c., Defendants in Error.

ERROR TO JO-DA VIES.

An information in the nature of a quo warranto is a prosecution, and must be / exhibited “ in the name and by the authority of the people of the State ofZ Elinois.” <

This was a proceeding against the plaintiffs in error, by quo warranto, claiming that they were usurping certain ferry franchises in the city of Galena. A demurrer was filed to this proceeding, which was overruled in the circuit court. The defendants in the court below failed to make any further answer, and at March term, 1850, Sheldon, Judge, presiding, a judgment was rendered, declaring that the franchises claimed were without sufficient warrant, and forfeiting the same to the people.

The defendants below sued out this writ of error.

Higgins and Strother, for plaintiffs in error.

W. H. L. Wallace, for the people.

Treat, C. J.

The constitution requires all prosecutions to be carried on “ in the name and by the authority of the people *418of the State of Illinois. The cases of Donnelly v. The People, 11 Illinois, 552, and The People v. The Mississippi and Atlantic Railroad Company, 13 Ib. 66, decides that an information in the nature of a quo warranto is a prosecution within the meaning of that provision. The information in this case was not presented in the mode prescribed by the constitution. It was not exhibited “ in the name and by the authority of the people of the State of Illinois.” But it runs in the name of the State’s attorney, “ who sues for the people in this behalf.” On the authority of the cases already cited, it is substantially defective, and clearly insufficient to support the judgment pronounced by the court.

The judgment is reversed.

Judgment reversed.