Abt v. Wilcox, Motion No. 271.
| Citation | 264 Mich. 183,249 N.W. 483 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 271. |
| Parties | ABT v. WILCOX et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; De Witt H. Merriam, Guy A. Miller, and Homer Ferguson, Judges.
Petition in mandamus by Peter J. Abt against Thomas C. Wilcox and another to reinstate plaintiff as deputy sheriff. From an order denying writ, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Le Roy J. Abt, of Detroit, for appellant.
George A. Lumsden, of Detroit, for appellee Thos. C. Wilcox.
Oscar A. Kaufman, of Detroit, for appellee Wayne County.
The question here presented is whether a duly appointed deputy sheriff in the county of Wayne, who is a veteran of the World War, is entitled, under what is known as the Veterans' Act (No. 67, Pub. Acts 1931), to hold the office after the term of the sheriff who appointed him has expired. The trial court held that he was not, and from the order denying a writ of mandamus to reinstate him in such office the plaintiff has taken this appeal.
Section 2 of said Act No. 67 provides that no veteran ‘holding an office or employment in any public department or public works of the state or any county, * * * shall be removed or suspended * * * except for official misconduct, habitual, serious or wilful neglect in the performance of duty, extortion, conviction of intoxication, conviction of felony, or incompetency,’ and that such removal, transfer, or suspension shall not be had except after a hearing provided for therein.
Our state Constitution provides for the election biennially of a sheriff in each organized county, and that ‘the county shall never be responsible for his acts.’ Article 8, §§ 3, 5. Section 1323, 1 Comp. Laws 1929, provides that ‘the sheriff of each organized county shall be elected at the general election, for the term of two (2) years. * * *’ Section 1325 authorizes him to appoint one or more deputies ‘for whose official acts he shall be in all respects responsible.’
‘The Veterans' Preference Act * * * was passed for a commendable purpose, * * *’ Smith v. Flint City Commission, 258 Mich. 698, 700, 242 N. W. 814, 815, and should be liberally construed.
‘Appointees and employees coming within the provisions of this statute have a right to remain in office or public employment until removed in the course prescribed by law.’ Wiest, J., in Koeper v. Street Railway Commission, 222 Mich. 464, 483, 193 N. W. 221, 227.
If we concede, as urged by plaintiff's counsel, that the office of sheriff is a ‘public department’ of the county (Ellis v. Common Council of Grand Rapids, 123 Mich. 567, 82 N. W. 244), and that a deputy sheriff could not be removed or suspended without cause by the sheriff during his term of office, it does not follow that the appointment does not terminate on the expiration of the term to which the sheriff has been elected.
In Bostatter v. Hinchman, 243 Mich. 589, 220 N. W. 775, it was said that a deputy sheriff acts in the place and stead of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Day v. King County, 33771
...judicial opinion. 8 1 Anderson on Sheriffs 76, § 85. Similar conclusions were reached by the supreme court of Michigan in Abt v. Wilcox, 264 Mich. 183, 249 N.W. 483, and by the supreme court of New Jersey in Ackley v. Norcross, 122 N.J.L. 569, 6 A.2d 721, in both of which honorably discharg......
-
Leelanau Cnty. Sheriff v. Kiessel
...be overridden by a statute such as the Veterans Preference Act or any other statute.” The circuit court also relied on Abt v. Wilcox, 264 Mich. 183, 249 N.W. 483 (1933), which held that the VPA does not protect a deputy appointed by a sheriff whose term has expired when a newly elected sher......
-
Carter v. Ann Arbor City Attorney
...to veterans, like plaintiff, who served in the Vietnam era (see MCL 35.61[j]) and is to be liberally construed. Abt v. Wilcox, 264 Mich. 183, 185, 249 N.W. 483 (1933). While the VPA clearly states that veterans shall be given a preference for appointment and employment, it does not describe......
-
Winberg v. University of Minnesota, Nos. CX-91-2009
...been held to be remedial statutes that are to be liberally construed to accomplish their legislative purpose. See Abt v. Wilcox, 264 Mich. 183, 249 N.W. 483, 483 (Mich.1933); Krohn v. Judicial Magistrate Appointing Comm'n, 239 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa The provision at issue in Winberg's case g......