Ashwell v. Bullock

• Decision Date: 23 January 1900
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ASHWELL v. BULLOCK.

81 N.W. 577

122 Mich. 620

ASHWELL v. BULLOCK.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 23, 1900

Certiorari to circuit court, Wayne county; Robert E. Frazer, Judge.

Mandamus by William H. Ashwell against Fred C. Bullock. Petition denied, and relator brings certiorari. Affirmed.

Clifton D. Gordon, Henry B. Graves, and Charles H Hatch (H. H. Hatch, of counsel), for relator.

F. L Brooke and Rowland M. Connor, for respondent.

MOORE J.

In July, 1899, the school board of Highland Park consisted of Trustees Thorpe, Kneale, Ketcham, Davison, Langdon, and Bullock. The last named was secretary of the board. An election was held July 10, 1899, to elect trustees in the place of Davison, Langdon, and Bullock, whose terms expired. At that election Davison, Ashwell, and Voorheis received more votes than did their opponents. July 19th the old board held a meeting, when Davison, Ashwell, and Voorheis all tendered their acceptance of the office of trustees. The board received the acceptance of Davison, but declined to receive the acceptance of either Ashwell or Voorheis, for the reason that at the time of the election their names did not appear upon the assessment roll, and it was claimed they were not eligible to the office of trustees. The old board then adjourned. Kneale, Ketcham, Bullock, and Langdon on the same day held a meeting, and elected officers. Bullock was re-elected secretary, and has continued to hold the books and papers pertaining to the office, claiming to be the legally elected secretary. On the 17th of August, Thorpe, Davison Ashwell, and Voorheis held a meeting, and elected Ashwell secretary. On the 15th of September he made a demand for the books and papers pertaining to the office upon Bullock, who refused to deliver them to him. He then petitioned the Wayne circuit court for a writ of mandamus to compel the delivery of the books to him. The court denied his petition, and this is a proceeding to review the action of the circuit judge by means of a writ of certiorari.

It was the claim of the petitioner that, at the time of the election, he and Voorheis both had property liable to assessment, and that the failure of the assessing officer to assess them did not render them ineligible to the office. The circuit judge was of the opinion that the title to an office was involved, and that a writ of mandamus was not a proper remedy. It is urged upon the part of relator that the circuit judge is in error, and that, where a public officer is prima facie entitled to an office, a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel his predecessor to deliver up the books and papers pertaining to the office citing High, Extr. Rem. �� 73, 74; Ketcham v. Wagner, 90 Mich. 271, 51 N.W. 281; Huntley v. Finley, McGrath, Mand. Cas. 1180. It is apparent from the statement of the case already made that not only does the respondent claim to be secretary of the board, but he also claims that the relator is not only not secretary of the board, but that he is not a member of the board, for the reason that he was not eligible to an election as a member of the board; so that not only is his title to the office of secretary questioned, but his title to the office of trustee. It is also clear that, if Ashwell and Voorheis were not eligible to be elected trustees, then Ashwell could not be elected secretary. The inquiry involves, not only the title to the office of secretary, but also an inquiry into the titles of Voorheis and Langdon, neither of whom is before the court, to the office of trustee. Under such a condition, the rule is as follows: 'In determining the extent to which the courts may properly interfere by mandamus with questions relating to the title to and possession of public offices, it is necessary to recur to an important principle, frequently...