Attorney General v. Marr

• Decision Date: 07 January 1885
• Citation: 21 N.W. 883,55 Mich. 445
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ATTORNEY GENERAL v. MARR and others.

21 N.W. 883

55 Mich. 445

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. MARR and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 7, 1885

Quo warranto.

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 authority whatever.

The respondents filed their plea, and deny the usurpation charged in the information; claim the organization of the township of Concord to be regular and legal; that the refusal of the board of supervisors to admit the supervisor of Concord to a seat in their body, and participation in their proceedings, was illegal; that the board of county canvassers recognized the legal existence of said township by canvassing the votes given in the same for the state officers in 1880 and 1882, and that by such acts, and long acquiescence, the public are estopped from questioning the legality of the organization of the township; that the township has about 300 residents, and that they are satisfied with the organization; that the same was necessary to protect and subserve the interests of the inhabitants of the township, and which will be best promoted by retaining the organization; and that the object was not to defeat the action of the legislature.

Accompanying the plea is a copy of the proceedings of the board of supervisors taken in organizing the township. To the plea filed a general demurrer was interposed, and upon the issue thus made the proceeding is before us for final disposition. The allegations in the information and the statement of facts in the plea do not materially differ, except in the conclusions of the parties resulting from the facts stated. The proceedings in this case, while purporting to be only to ascertain by what authority the respondents hold the several offices whose franchise they assume to exercise, is really to ascertain and determine the legal existence of the said township of Concord. The proceedings, therefore, involve questions of public importance, requiring careful consideration lest the interests of the...