Cook v. Jackson, Motion No. 311.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 311. |
| Citation | 264 Mich. 186,249 N.W. 619 |
| Parties | COOK v. JACKSON, Warden. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petition in mandamus by Donald B. Cook against Harry H. Jackson, as Warden of the Michigan State Prison of Jackson, Michigan, to compel defendant to reinstate plaintiff as Traffic Clerk in the Michigan State Prison.
Writ of mandamus denied.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
L. A. Vincent, of Jackson, for petitioner.
Patrick H. O'Brien, Atty. Gen., and Walter A. Kirkby, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Plaintiff prays for a writ of mandamus to compel defendant to reinstate him in his former employment as East Gate traffic clerk in the Michigan State Prison at Jackson, on the ground that he was discharged without just cause, without hearing, and without written order of the Governor, in violation of the Veterans' Preference Act, Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 900-903, Act No. 67, Pub. Acts 1931. Many questions are raised but it is sufficient to consider only one.
Plaintiff, two days after his discharge by defendant, sent to defendant, addressed to him as warden and to the chairman of the Michigan State Prison Commission, a written request for reinstatement. Neither the petition for mandamus nor the traverse of the return alleged that he had filed with the Governor a written protest.
Section 2 of the act sets up the modus operandi of the preference. After providing that a veteran in state service shall not be removed from his office or employment except for certain stated causes and after a full hearing before the Governor, at which the veteran has a right to be present, with counsel, and defend himself, the act provides: ‘Provided further, That as a condition precedent to the removal of such veteran, he shall be entitled to a notice stating the cause or causes of removal at least fifteen days prior to the hearing above provided for, and such removal, suspension or transfer shall be made only upon a written order of the governor: * * * Provided, however, That where such veteran has been removed, transferred, or suspended other than in accordance with the provisions of this act, he shall file a written protest with the officer whose duty under the provisions of this act it is to make the removal, transfer, or suspension, within thirty days from the day such veteran is removed, transferred, or suspended; otherwise the veteran shall be deemed to have waived the benefits and privileges of this act.’
As the removal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Township of Casco v. Secretary of State
...Circuit Judge, 209 Mich. 97, 99, 176 N.W. 550 (1920); Stinton v. Kent Circuit Judge, 37 Mich. 286, 287 (1877). 130. Cook v. Jackson, 264 Mich. 186, 188, 249 N.W. 619 (1933); Hickey v. Oakland Co. Bd. of Supervisors, 62 Mich. 94, 99-101, 28 N.W. 771 131. Stack v. Picard, 266 Mich. 673, 673-6......
-
Fry v. Equitable Trust Co.
... ... 165249 N.W. 619FRY, State Treasurer,v.EQUITABLE TRUST CO. et al.Motion No. 284.Supreme Court of Michigan.June 29, 1933 ... Original mandamus ... State Bank (1878) 29 N. J. Eq. 268, Id. (1878) 30 N. J. Eq. 311, the court thought that nonuser for 100 years was sufficient to negative ... Leach v. Exchange State Bank (1925) 200 Iowa, 185, 203 N. W. 31. In Cook County National Bank v. United States, 107 U. S. 445, 2 S. Ct. 561, 566, ... ...
-
Sherrod v. City of Detroit
...must either file a written protest within the specified period or waive the privileges of the VPA. See, e.g., Cook v. Jackson, 264 Mich. 186, 188, 249 N.W. 619 (1933). Further, to allow the employer to hold the hearing after the adverse employment action would render nugatory the language s......
-
In re Grant
...must either file a written protest within the specified period or waive the privileges of the VPA. See, e.g., Cook v. Jackson, 264 Mich. 186, 188, 249 N.W. 619 (1933). Further, to allow the employer to hold the hearing after the adverse employment action would render nugatory the language s......