Crawford v. Township Boards of Scio & Webster in Washtenaw County
| Decision Date | 09 January 1872 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Cornelius C. Crawford v. The Township Boards of the Townships of Scio and Webster in Washtenaw County |
Heard January 3, 1872
Certiorari to township boards of the townships of Scio and Webster, in the county of Washtenaw.
Proceeding reversed and set aside.
O Hawkins, for plaintiff in certiorari.
Hiram J. Beakes, for defendants in certiorari.
This is a common-law certiorari fro this court to the township boards of the townships of Scio and Webster, in the county of Washtenaw, to bring up for review in this court, the proceedings of the boards of the two townships, sitting as a single joint board, upon a petition presented to them for the removal of the plaintiff in error from the office of director of a school district embracing a part of each township, "for persistently refusing to carry out the instructions of said school district in good faith."
The return shows that the officers composing the two township boards, met together and organized (or purported to organize) as one joint board, by electing the supervisor of Scio as chairman, and the township clerk of Webster as clerk, of such joint board.
Before this board, thus organized, such proceedings were had upon said complaint that, the director being found guilty of the charge contained in it, this joint board proceeded to remove him from office, so far as their judgment and decision could do so, and another director was subsequently elected by the votes of the district.
Several questions were discussed upon the argument in this court, but we think it necessary to notice only the question of the jurisdiction of such supposed joint board to hear and determine a case of this kind, to remove a school-district officer for any cause.
The statute (Comp. L., § 2377, as amended in 1861, Sess. Laws, p. 291, § 136), provides: "The township board of each township shall have power, and is hereby required to remove from office, upon satisfactory proof, after at least five days' notice to the party implicated, any district officer or school inspector, who shall have illegally used or disposed of any of the public moneys entrusted to his charge, or who shall persistently, and without sufficient cause, refuse or neglect to discharge any one of the duties of his office."
Now--without noticing the fact that the charge against the director, of which he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGregor v. Board of Supervisors
...of the removal of township school directors, see Stockwell v. White Lake 22 Mich. 341; Crawford v. Scio & Webster id. 405; Crawford v. Township Boards 24 Mich. 248; Hamtramck v. Holihan 46 Mich. 127, 8 N.W. Geddes v. Thomastown id. 316; Wenzel v. Dorr 49 Mich. 25, 12 N.W. 896; Hazen v. Akro......
-
Dullam v. Willson
... ... any state or county officer except the state treasurer and ... 36 Mich. 419; ... Crawford v. Township Boards of Scio and Webster, 24 ... ...
-
Speed v. Common Council of City of Detroit
...bribes did not disqualify him for election to the same office. See, also, State v. Common Council of City of Duluth, supra; Crawford v. Township Boards, 24 Mich. 248; Richards v. Clarksburg, 30 W.Va. 502, 4 S.E. 774; Dill. Mun. Corp. � 252, and note; State v. Jersey City, 25 N. J. Law, 53......
- Bashford v. People