Attorney Gen. v. Board of Supervisors
| Decision Date | 06 December 1862 |
| Citation | 11 Mich. 63 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The Attorney-General v. The Board of Supervisors of the county of St. Clair |
Heard November 28, 1862
Appeal from St. Clair Circuit in Chancery.
The bill was filed by the Attorney-General to enjoin proceedings which were being taken under resolutions passed by the board of supervisors of said county at their October meeting, 1861 by a two-thirds vote of the supervisors present, the first of which was that it was expedient to remove the county seat of said county from the city of St. Clair to the city of Port Huron; the second, that the question of such removal should be submitted to the electors of said county at the next annual township meeting to be held in the several townships and the charter elections to be held in the several wards of the cities of said county; and the third directed the county clerk to give notice of such submission, as required by law.
The bill claimed the said resolutions to be inoperative for the reason, among others, that there was no lawful mode of submitting the question of removal to such of the electors of the county as resided in the cities of St. Clair and Port Huron.
The Circuit Court in Chancery heard the case on bill and answer and awarded an injunction as prayed. The defendants appealed.
Decree of the Circuit Court affirmed.
G. V N. Lothrop, for complainant.
W. T. Mitchell, A. B. Maynard and O. D. Conger, for defendants.
Section 8 of article 6 of the Constitution provides, that no county seat once established shall be removed until the place to which it is proposed to be removed shall be designated by two thirds of the board of supervisors of the county, and a majority of the electors voting thereon shall have voted in favor of the proposed location, in such manner as shall be provided by law. The law prescribes (Comp. L., §§ 351, 352, 353), that the assent of a majority of the electors of the county voting thereon shall be requisite to remove a county seat, and that the proposition shall be submitted "at the next township meeting to the vote of the electors of such county," and that "a vote of the electors of such county shall be taken in each of the townships in such county at the place designated for the next township meeting." In the county of St. Clair are the cities of St. Clair and Port Huron. Neither of them have township meetings, or any thing of like...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curtenius v. Hoyt
... ... Doan and Amos D. Allen (constituting the Township Board of Kalamazoo), the Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad Company, and the ... v. Farr 24 Ark. 161; State v. Williams 5 Wis. 308; Att'y ... Gen. v. Supervisors 11 Mich. 63; Monroe v. Collins 17 Ohio ... St. 665; ... ...
-
Schipper v. Smith
...circumstances a court of equity may assume jurisdiction to pass on a controversy of this nature. See Attorney General v. Board of Supervisors of the County of St. Clair, 11 Mich. 63; Township of Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo County Supervisors, 349 Mich. 273, 84 N.W.2d 475; Godwin Heights Public S......
-
Shellabarger v. The Board of Commissioners of Jackson County
... ... void. (The State v. Van, Duyne, 39 N.W. 612; ... Cooley, Const. Lim. [6th ed.] 775; Attorney General v ... Board of Supervisors, 11 Mich. 63; People v ... Maynard, 15 id. 463, 469, 471.) ... ...
-
Kavanagh v. Coash, 65
...claim. It does not appear that the issue involved has heretofore been determined by this Court. In Attorney General v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of St. Clair, 11 Mich. 63, the question at issue was the removal of the county seat. It was held that the enabling act of the legisla......