Board of Sup'rs of Cheboygan County v. Sup'rs of Township of Mentor

• Decision Date: 23 December 1892
• Citation: 54 N.W. 169,94 Mich. 386
• Parties: BOARD OF SUP'RS OF CHEBOYGAN COUNTY v. SUPERVISOR OF TOWNSHIP OF MENTOR. SAME v. SUPERVISOR OF TOWNSHIP OF TUSCORARA. SAME v. SUPERVISOR OF TOWNSHIP OF NUNDA.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

54 N.W. 169

94 Mich. 386

BOARD OF SUP'RS OF CHEBOYGAN COUNTY v. SUPERVISOR OF TOWNSHIP OF MENTOR.

SAME v. SUPERVISOR OF TOWNSHIP OF TUSCORARA.

SAME v. SUPERVISOR OF TOWNSHIP OF NUNDA.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 23, 1892

Petition by the board of supervisors of Cheboygan county against the supervisor of the township of Mentor, same petitioner against the supervisor of the township of Tuscorara, and same petitioner against the supervisor of the township of Nunda for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to spread on the assessment roll of their respective townships the county taxes apportioned thereto for the year 1891. Writ denied as to a portion of the tax, and granted as to the residue.

Henry G. Dozer, Pros. Atty., for relator. George E. Frost, (Watts S. Humphrey, of counsel,) for respondents.

GRANT J.

The petition for the writ of mandamus in this case is filed by the prosecuting attorney of Cheboygan county in behalf of the relator to compel the respondents to spread upon the assessment roll of their respective townships the county taxes apportioned thereto for the year 1891. The respondents refused to spread such taxes, for the reason that the apportionment was fraudulent, illegal, and void. The facts upon which they based such refusal, as set up in their answers, are as follows: Certain citizens of the county of Cheboygan petitioned the board of supervisors to vote financial aid to secure the location for a tannery in the county. A resolution was offered before the board to appropriate $2,000 for that purpose. Knowing that such action upon the part of the board would be illegal, and would vitiate every tax in the county such resolution was finally withdrawn, and another resolution substituted in its place to expend $2,000 for the purchase of 14 acres of land for a county poor farm. The piece of land so ordered purchased was never intended to be used for that purpose; was wild, uncultivated, and not accessible by any road, and was comparatively worthless. This resolution was passed by a majority of the board, the respondents voting against it. An order was ordered drawn by the chairman and clerk of the board for that amount, with the evident purpose of speedily accomplishing this illegal object, and preventing the interference of the court to enjoin it. The board instructed their temporary chairman-the regular chairman being absent at that meeting-to sign the order, and deliver it. The resolutions to accomplish this object were carried by a vote of 14 to 5. The minority filed a written protest against such action, setting forth the facts and their reasons for the protest. This $2,000 was included in the county taxes to be raised, and apportioned among the various townships. These facts are admitted by the relator. But it is insisted that the provisions of the statute requiring the supervisors to spread the tax upon...