Fillmore v. Van Horn

• Citation: 88 N.W. 69,129 Mich. 52
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 03 December 1901
• Parties: FILLMORE v. VAN HORN.

88 N.W. 69

129 Mich. 52

FILLMORE v. VAN HORN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 3, 1901

Certiorari to circuit court, Berrien county; Orville W. Coolidge, Judge.

Proceeding by Ransom M. Fillmore against Frank M. Van Horn to compel the delivery of books and papers held by the latter as secretary of the board of examiners of barbers. From a judgment denying the relief asked, relator brings certiorari. Judgment below affirmed.

Relator brings this action under chapter 272, Comp. Laws, which requires every person, when removed from office, or after the expiration of his term, to deliver over on demand to his successor all books and papers in his custody as such officer. Upon refusal such successor may institute a proceeding before any judge of a court of record or circuit court commissioner to compel such delivery. Relator claims to hold title under Act No. 235, Pub. Acts 1901, entitled 'An act to provide for the examination and licensing of barbers, and to regulate the management of barber shops.' He was elected secretary and treasurer. Respondent was elected secretary of the board of examiners of barbers under Act No. 212, Pub. Acts 1899, entitled 'An act to provide for the examination and licensing of barbers.' His term of office would expire on September 1, 1902. The act of 1901 if valid, repeals the act of 1899. The original bill was introduced in the senate, and known as 'Senate Bill No 47,' and entitled 'A bill to amend sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, and to repeal sections 8 and 10 of an act entitled 'An act to provide for the examination and licensing of barbers,' being Act No. 212 of the Public Acts of the State of Michigan, for the year 1899, approved June 1, 1899, and to add seven new sections thereto to stand as sections 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of said act, and to amend the title of said act so as to read as follows: 'An act to provide for the examination and licensing of barbers and to regulate the management of barber shops and to provide a penalty for violation of the provisions of this act.'' The bill was referred to the senate committee on state affairs, and was reported back to the senate with the request that it be printed, which was agreed to. On April 24th the committee reported the bill to the senate under the same title as that above given, and a substitute therefor entitled 'A bill to provide for the examination and licensing of barbers, and to regulate the management of barber shops.' On April 25th the senate journal reads as follows: 'Senate bill No. 47 (file No. 182), entitled 'A bill to provide for the examination and licensing of barbers, and to regulate the management of barber shops,' was read a third time, and passed, a majority of all the senators elect voting therefor by yeas and nays. The question being on agreeing to the title, Mr. Goodell moved to amend the title so as to read as follows: 'A bill to provide for the examination and licensing of barbers by a state board; prescribing the powers and duties of said board; to regulate the management of barber shops; and to repeal Act No. 212 of 1899, entitled 'An act to provide for the examination and licensing of barbers.'' The motion prevailed, and the title was so amended. The title as amended was then agreed to.' A motion to give the bill immediate effect having failed, it was laid upon the table. On May 1st it was taken up, and given immediate effect. On May 2d the secretary of the senate sent the following communication to the speaker of the house of representatives: 'Sir: I am instructed by the senate to transmit to the house the following bill: Senate bill No. 47 (file No. 182), entitled 'A bill to provide for the examination and licensing of barbers, and to regulate the management of barber shops,'--and to inform the house that the bill has passed the senate, and has been ordered to take immediate effect June 1, 1901. In this action of the senate the concurrence of the house is respectfully asked.' The bill was then referred to the house committee on state affairs. On May 9th it was reported by the committee to the house under the same title as given in the message of the secretary of the senate, with sundry amendments thereto, recommending that the amendments be concurred in, and that the bill so amended do pass. The amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered printed and placed on the general order. May 27th a member moved to discharge the committee of the whole from the further consideration of said bill entitled 'A bill to provide for the examination and licensing of barbers, and to regulate the management of barber shops,' and it was passed by the house. Certain amendments were made, and the bill was then referred to the committee on labor. May 28th it was reported back to the house committee, passed, given immediate effect, and returned by the clerk of the house to the senate by the same title as last above stated; the amendments were concurred in, and the bill was referred to the secretary for printing and presentation to the governor. The circuit judge denied the relief asked, and the case is before us on the writ of certiorari for review.

On certiorari to review a refusal by a circuit judge to grant an order compelling the delivery to relator of certain books and papers claimed by him as respondent's successor in a public office, where relator claims that the act under which respondent was appointed was repealed by the act under which relator was...