Lawrence v. Hanley

• Decision Date: 23 January 1891
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: LAWRENCE v. HANLEY.

47 N.W. 753

84 Mich. 399

LAWRENCE v. HANLEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 23, 1891

Mandamus.

Henry M. Duffield, for relator. Wm S. Sheeran, (Wm. J. Gray and F. A Baker, of counsel,) for respondent.

MORSE J.

The real controversy in this case is the conflicting claims of two persons to the office of county auditor of Wayne county. The admitted facts are as follows: Charles P. Collins was a duly-elected county auditor, and the regular term of his office would have expired on the 31st day of December, 1890. His successor was by the statute to be elected on the 4th day of November, 1890, at the general election. Candidates were nominated by the different political parties, and Joseph Nagel duly elected as such successor. Before the expiration of Collins, term, and before Nagel had taken any steps to qualify, Nagel died, on the 9th day of December, 1890. On the 12th day of January, 1891, the governor appointed Henry J. A Leteker to fill the supposed vacancy caused by the death of Nagel. Collins, under legal advice, and claiming that there was no vacancy in the office that could be filled by appointment of the governor, and that he held the office under the laws of this state until his successor was duly elected and qualified, refused to vacate his office. There are three county auditors of Wayne county who compose the board of county auditors. Each is chosen for the full term of three years. At each biennial general fall election one is chosen, and, in the years when no such election is held, one is elected by the board of supervisors of Wayne county. How. St. � 511. The auditor having the shortest time to serve is chairman of the board of auditors. How. St. � 512. The auditors elected as above provided shall hold their offices for the term of three years, and until their successors shall be elected and qualified. How. St. � 511. At the time of Leteker's appointment, said board of auditors was unquestionably composed of George C. Lawrence, the relator, chairman, and James Holihan, whose term would expire on the 31st day of December, 1892, and Charles P. Collins, holding over until his successor was elected and qualified. Upon the appointment of Leteker this controversy commenced. Leteker demanded the office of Collins, who refused to surrender it. Holihan recognized Leteker, and Lawrence sided with Collins, and at once there were two boards of auditors in session; Holihan and Leteker on one side, and Lawrence and Collins on the other. The sheriff of Wayne county, the respondent, recognized Holihan and Leteker, and the police department recognized Lawrence and Collins. It is claimed by the relator that the respondent took the books of the board by force away from Lawrence, the chairman of the board, and his petition prays for an order directing the respondent to return the books to the relator, and to no one else, and that he be restrained from interfering with the contest for said office of auditor between said Collins and Leteker, and do recognize the relator Lawrence and Holihan and Collins as the board of county auditors, to the exclusion of Leteker. The sheriff answers, in substance, denying that Collins is a member of such board, and that the relator, as chairman of said board, is entitled to the books in question, but avers that the same belong to the custody of the board. Claims that on the day he took possession of the books he was summoned to the auditor's office by Holihan and Leteker, a majority of said board, to furnish them assistance in maintaining order in said office. He found Collins, Lawrence, Holihan, and Leteker sitting at the desk in said office. He directed two of his deputies to remain in the office, with instructions that they were there to preserve order, and for no other purpose, and thereupon left the room. Shortly afterwards, as he is informed and believes, Collins departed from the office, leaving Leteker in peaceable possession of the same. About 2 o'clock in the afteroon of the same day he was again summoned to the office to "maintain order and preserve the peace," and, going there, found Collins, Leteker, Holihan, and Lawrence present, together with the attorney of said Collins, who sent for policemen, who also soon appeared to the number of half a dozen. His answer as to what took place there is not material to this issue, except in so far as it shows how the respondent became possessed of the books. He says that the relator, Lawrence, had changed the combination of the safe for the purpose of excluding Holihan and Leteker therefrom, and undertook to place the books therein beyond the reach of said Holihan and Leteker. Holihan attempted to resist such disposition of the books, and he and Lawrence became engaged in a scuffle for the possession of them. Fearing a row and danger to the persons of said Holihan and Lawrence, the respondent took the books away from said Lawrence, and carried them to his own office, in the same building, and placed them in his safe for safe-keeping. He says he returned them the next morning "to the said board," but he does not say which board; but it appears further along in his answer that he returned them to Holihan and Leteker, and that every night since he has locked them up in his safe, at the request of Holihan and Leteker, and returned such books to them each morning. It further appears in the case that ever since there has been two boards attempting to exercise the duties of county auditors, that the treasurer of the county recognizes Holihan and Leteker as such board, and that they are drawing orders upon the county treasury as such board, but that the depositary of the funds, provided and designated by law, refuses to honor the orders or warrants of said Holihan and Leteker, unless the same are countersigned by Lawrence as chairman, and Lawrence refuses to so countersign them, so that no money can be drawn from the funds of the county to pay the daily expenses of said county.

It is always an unseemly spectacle when one undertakes to obtain an office by force, and another resists such attempted taking. It is not only demoralizing to the public service, but it creates disorder, riot, and often bloodshed. It can never be countenanced by the courts. And it is not for the sheriff or the police force to take sides in such a contest as they did here. It is evident that the sheriff went beyond his duties as a peace-officer, and used the...