Klug v. Fuller

Citation160 N.W. 589,194 Mich. 41
Decision Date21 December 1916
Docket NumberNo. 395.,395.
PartiesKLUG v. FULLER, State Auditor General.
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Mandamus on the relation of William H. Klug against Oramel B. Fuller, Auditor General of the State of Michigan. Writ denied.

Argued before STONE, C. J., and KUHN, OSTRANDER, BIRD, MOORE, STEERE, and BROOKE, JJ. Charles Bowles, of Detroit, for relator.

Grant Fellows, Atty. Gen., and Leland W. Carr, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

KUHN, J.

Mandamus is sought to compel the respondent to approve a plat of certain land situated in the township of Hamtramck, Wayne county. The petition alleges that the plat was executed in due form, and that the treasurer of the county had attached thereto his certificate to the effect that all taxes for the five years preceding have been paid, and that the township board approved the plat; but, when submitted to the respondent, he declined to approve it, assigning as a reason for his action that it had not been approved by the board of auditors of Wayne county.

The proceedings in question are governed by sections 3372, 3373, of the Complied Laws of 1897, as amended by Act 251 of the Public Acts of 1915, and so much of the first section is here set forth as is necessary for an understanding of the question involved.

‘Before such map or plat shall be approved by the Auditor General, and before such map or plat shall be recorded by the register of deeds, the proprietor or proprietors thereof shall cause to be attached to said map or plat a certificate of approval from the township board or the city council, or the board of commissioners in municipalities having a commission form of government, or the village council having jurisdiction over the land so described in the said map or plat: Provided, that if said township board, city council or village council refuse to approve said map or plat it shall notify in writing, within five days, the proprietor or proprietors or their agents, of such nonapproval, giving its reasons therefor, and such map or plat before being approved by the Auditor General and before being recorded as aforesaid, shall be delivered at the office of the county clerk and by him presented to a board consisting of the judge of probate, county clerk and county treasurer of the county in which the lands so described in said map or plat are situated, or to the boards of county auditors in counties having such boards. It shall be the duty of said board whenever any map or plat is submitted to them to carefully examine the same for the purpose of determining whether or not the caption of said map or plat conflicts in any way with the title or caption of any other map or plat previously recorded in the office of the register of deeds of said county, and also for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the streets and alleys in such map or plat conform, in their opinion, to the streets and alleys of any adjoining map or plat heretofore recorded; and are so named that no name previously in use in the same city or village shall be made use of except in continuing a street or alley: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall require the dedication of any other or further streets than those shown on the plat; and for the purpose of determining whether or not the land included within the limits of said map or plat is suitable for platting purposes; and if, upon examination of said map or plat a majority of said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Aikens v. State Dept. of Conservation
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 20, 1972
    ...of a less weight than 1 3/4 ounces;' (emphasis added.) should be read in the disjunctive or conjunctive. In Klug v. Auditor General (1916), 194 Mich. 41, 45, 160 N.W. 589, 590, the Court 'Relator's position is based largely upon the punctuation and upon rules of grammatical construction, an......
  • Stutelberg v. Practical Management Co., Docket No. 24058
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • July 21, 1976
    ...other well-recognized and long-established methods.' 'This Court believes its function appropriately reflected in Klug v. Auditor General, 194 Mich. 41 (160 N.W. 589) (1916), where the Court "It is a fundamental rule of construction, and one well established by this court, that in construin......
  • Allen v. Stockwell
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 7, 1920
    ...made by the board. The case is not very pertinent to the question here involved. A case more in point is that of Klug v. Auditor General, 194 Mich. 41, 160 N. W. 589. In that case the facts were that the plat had been approved by the town board of Hamtramck, and then, without being presente......
  • Leonard-Hillger Land Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Auditors
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 27, 1918
    ...in Campau v. Board of Public Works, 86 Mich. 372, 49 N. W. 39;Van Husan v. Heames, 91 Mich. 519, 52 N. W. 18;Klug v. Auditor General, 194 Mich. 41, 160 N. W. 589;Campau v. Board of Auditors, 164 N. W. 369. Under the circumstances, we are compelled to disagree with the learned trial judge, t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT