Board of Sup'rs of Wayne County v. Judges of Wayne Circuit Court

• Decision Date: 02 July 1895
• Citation: 106 Mich. 166,64 N.W. 42
• Parties: BOARD OF SUP'RS OF WAYNE COUNTY v. JUDGES OF WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

64 N.W. 42

106 Mich. 166

BOARD OF SUP'RS OF WAYNE COUNTY v. JUDGES OF WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 2, 1895

Application by the board of supervisors of the county of Wayne for mandamus to the judges of the circuit court for the county of Wayne.

Some time during the latter part of the year 1894 the supervisors of Wayne county took proceedings for the purchase of a site for, and the erection of, a courthouse and other buildings. The question of bonding the county for $1,500,000 for that purpose was submitted to the electors, and carried by a vote of 13,308 to 3,442. That action was restrained by the court at the instance of the attorney general by decree dated December 31, 1894, for reasons unnecessary to mention. An act was passed by the present legislature, and approved February 20th last, authorizing the supervisors of that county to hold a special meeting in February or March, 1895, to consider and determine the necessity of purchasing a site for a building for a courthouse and county offices, for a jail and sheriff's residence, and for other needful purposes for said county; and to provide for submitting the question to the electors of raising by loan upon the bonds of said county such sums as they might deem necessary therefor. Section 2 of the act provided that such special meeting should be held upon a request therefor in writing, signed by at least one-third of the supervisors of the county, and specifying the time and place of such meeting. Upon receiving such request, the county clerk was required to give immediate notice of such meeting in writing "to each of the supervisors personally, or by leaving the same at the place of residence of such supervisor, or by depositing the same in the mails, postage prepaid, addressed to such supervisor at his place of residence, at least six days before the time of such meeting." The requisite number of supervisors-28-signed and presented the call to the county clerk pursuant to this law for a special meeting to be held March 4th. The clerk immediately gave notice, and served it as hereinafter stated. The board met at the time specified 41 of the 54 supervisors being present. The proper resolution was passed determining the necessity, and submitting the question of bonding the county for $1,500,000 to purchase a site and erect buildings. The election was held, and the proposition adopted by a large majority. After the election more than one-third of the supervisors signed and presented to the county clerk a request for a special meeting to be held May 1st. Notices were given by the clerk in the manner hereinafter set forth. Posters without any signature, printed in three different languages,-English, Polish, and German,-were placarded in various places in the city of Detroit, reading as follows: "Attention, voters! Don't forget to vote yes for a new county building. It will distribute $1,000,000 among the working men of Detroit and give employment to a great many men." At the second special meeting the board passed the necessary resolutions preparatory to the purchase of a site and the issue of bonds. At this point the attorney general, upon the relation of certain citizens of Detroit, filed a bill in chancery to restrain this action of the board, and prevent the purchase of the site or the issue of the bonds. The respondents issued a restraining order until the final hearing of the case whereupon the relators filed in this court their petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the vacation of that order insisting that it is an abuse of discretion, and that the bill made no case for the interference of a court of equity.

F. A. Baker, for relator.

Fraser & Gates, for respondents.

GRANT J. (after stating the facts).

Two objections are raised against the proceeding: (1) That there was no legal evidence before the board of supervisors at either of their meetings, on March 4th or May 1st of the service upon each supervisor of the notice of the meeting, and that, without such evidence before them, it had no jurisdiction to proceed. (2) That the election in favor of said loan was obtained and procured through and by means of the corrupt offers or inducements to laboring men through the posters.

1. It is conceded that the notices were in proper form. The regularity of the proceedings is not attacked, except the proof of service of the notice. Proof of service of notice of both meetings was made,-upon some by mail, and upon some by...