# Tyler v. Township Board

> Missouri Court of Appeals · May 16, 1898 · 75 Mo. App. 561

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6619063

## Case

- **Full name:** B. Tyler v. Township Board of Lamar Township, Barton County
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 16, 1898
- **Citations:** 75 Mo. App. 561; 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 471
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Gill
- **Judges:** Gill
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6619063

## Opinion text

Gill, J. —
Tyler, the appellant, brought mandamus against the respondents to compel them, as the township board, to grant him an appeal in a proceeding, to open a public road across said appellant’s land. At the hearing before the circuit court the writ was denied and Tyler appealed.
It is clear that mandamus should not -be granted in a case like this. Mandamus will not lie where the *563 complaining party has another adequate and specific remedy. Here the appellant had such specific remedy. The statute provides, that where the township board “fails to allow'an áppeal in the cause when the same ought to be allowed * * * the circuit court, or other court having jurisdiction of Such appeal, or judge thereof in vacation, on such fact satisfactorily appearing, may, by rule and attachment, compel such board or other officer to allow the same,” etc. R. S. 1889, sec. 8518..
This is, in substance, the same provision that appears in the statute for appeals from justices of the peace (section 6333), and that has been held such a remedy as denies the resort to mandamus. State ex rel. v. McAuliffe, 48 Mo. 112 .
In view, then, of this well settled principle it becomes unnecessary to discuss other questions. The judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.
All concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6619063. Public record. Not legal advice.