Attorney Gen. v. Marr

Decision Date07 January 1885
PartiesATTORNEY GENERAL v. MARR and others.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

55 Mich. 445
21 N.W. 883

ATTORNEY GENERAL
v.
MARR and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Filed January 7, 1885.


Quo warranto.

[21 N.W. 883]

Smiley & Earle, for relator.

Pratt, Hatch & Davis, for respondents.


SHERWOOD, J.

The townships of Wexford, Hanover, Springwells, and Antioch, in the county of Wexford, were laid off and organized as originally surveyed, containing 36 sections each. These townships all corner with each other. The information in this case shows that some time previous to the twenty-eighth day of May, 1879, the board of supervisors of said county assumed to create a new township, consisting of a section taken from each of the townships above named, all cornering with each other. The new township was called Sherman. The legislature passed an act, which was approved on the twenty-eighth day of May, 1879, discontinuing the township of Sherman, and attaching the sections composing the same to the several townships from which they were taken. On the twenty-first of August, 1879, seven days before the act above mentioned took effect, the board of supervisors assumed to organize another township in said county, and took action by which they constituted the east two sections of the town of Sherman, as created by them, and the next two sections lying east of those, a township under the name of the township of Concord, and by resolution an election was ordered to be held on the eighth of September following, at which township officers were chosen, and their successors, who are the respondents in this case, claim to exercise the functions of the several offices in said township.

The information further avers that the board of supervisors of said county, since the pretended organization of the said township of Concord, have never recognized its organization, or permitted the person elected as its supervisor to take a seat in their board or participate in its proceedings; that the organization of said township is illegal and void; that the meeting of the board of supervisors at which the pretended organization of said township took place was not properly or lawfully called; that no lawful petition or application was ever made to said board asking for the organization of said township, and that no legal notice of the pendency of any such petition before the board was ever given, posted, or published; and that the organization of said township was for a fraudulent purpose, in violation of the act of the legislature above referred to, and without any lawful...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT