We are persuaded that the viewpoint of the Michigan court is too rigid. In Burkett ex rel. Leach v. Ulmer, 137 Me. 120, 15 A.2d 858, the court concluded that the important consideration in determining the public character of an office is whether the incumbent thereof is vested with some portion of the sovereignty so that he may exercise in some manner the sovereignty of the state either in its legislative, executive, or judicial aspects. The Maine court then went on to say: "'The performance of an executive, legislative, or judicial act is therefore a recognized test of a public office.'"

Furthermore, at common law, private individuals without the intervention of the Attorney General of the State cannot, either as of right or by leave of court, institute quo warranto proceedings or action in the nature thereof to test the right of an officer to the public office he holds. Burkett, Petitioner, ex rel. Leach v. Ulmer, 1940, 137 Me. 120, at 122, 15 A.2d 858. The Attorney General, in this State, is a constitutional officer endowed with common law powers.

In order to prevail, proof of the substantive elements authorizing such relief should be of the same kind, quality and quantity as would have warranted a favorable judgment under the older forms. State ex rel. v. Jones, 194 Ark. 445, 108 S.W.2d 901; Burkett ex rel. v. Ulmer, 137 Me. 120, 15 A.2d 858; State ex inf. v. Murphy, 347 Mo. 484, 148 S.W.2d 527. "The various procedural changes * * * do not affect the basic purposes for which the writ was originally designed." State ex inf. v. Murphy, supra.

Rule 81 (b). As pointed out in Burkett, Petitioner; Leach v. Ulmer, 137 Me. 120, 122, 15 A.2d 858, the procedure in this State is instituted by the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto. However, there are still some states wherein, by virtue of the fact that the Statute of Anne forms a part of their common law, or by force of special statutes, the person desiring to use this process files an application therefor with a court.