McGregor v. Carney, Motion No. 279.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1935 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 279. |
| Citation | 271 Mich. 278,260 N.W. 163 |
| Parties | McGREGOR v. CARNEY et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petition by Silas J. McGregor for mandamus directed to Claude S. Carney, chairman, and others, as commissioners of the Department of Labor and Industry, state of Michigan, and another.
Writ denied.
Argued before the Entire Court.
Archie C. Fraser, of Detroit, for petitioner.
Harry S. Toy, Atty. Gen., and Earl L. Burhans, Arthur E. Kidder, and Edmund E. Shepherd, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.
Silas J. McGregor, a veteran of the Spanish American War, was discharged as deputy commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry by the commissioners of the department on May 13, 1933. He claims that shortly thereafter he filed a written protest requesting a hearing on his claim of unlawful discharge, with Claude S. Carney, chairman of the commission, and with the Governor in office at the time of his discharge. He demanded a hearing before the Governor. On June 29, 1933, he was advised by the Governor's secretary that no hearing would be granted. Petitioner took no action for approximately a year and a half, but on December 22, 1934, he filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this court, in which he alleged that he was unlawfully discharged in violation of the provisions of the Veterans' Preference Act, sections 900-903, section 903, Comp. Laws 1929, Acts No. 66 and No. 67 of Public Acts of 1931; that he had satisfactorily performed his duties as deputy commissioner for a term of almost six years, and was summarily discharged in May, 1933, because he did not belong to the political party in power at that time; that he was denied a hearing to which he claims he was entitled under the law. He seeks mandamus against Claude S. Carney, William A. Seegmiller, Eugene P. Berry, and Daniel O'Connor, the commissioners of the Department of Labor and Industry at the time the petition was filed, and also against John K. Stack, Jr., then the auditor general of the state of Michigan. Defendants filed a sworn answer on the 4th of January, 1935, denying plaintiff's claim that they had no right to discharge him without a hearing, and asserting that plaintiff was not a lawyer, although he was operating in a section of the state that especially required the services of an attorney; that the removal of plaintiff was for the purpose of more efficiently administering the law; that they had a right to remove him as he could hold his position only during the pleasure of the board. While they further deny that the sole and only reason for plaintiff's discharge was that he was affiliated with a different political party, they nevertheless admit and claim that the efficiency of the department would be best served by deputy members of the commission in sympathy with the administration then in power. It is also contended that plaintiff was not an employee within the meaning of the Veterans' Preference Act,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chamski v. Cowan
...There is nothing to indicate prejudice of defendants. Although a delay of 18 months was held to be laches in the case of McGregor v. Carney, 271 Mich. 278, 260 N.W. 163, the lapse of time was accompanied by a material change of circumstances,-a change of administration. Is Act No. 226, Pub.......
-
O'Halloran v. Sec'y of State
...that results in prejudice to a party." Id ., citing Lothian v Detroit , 414 Mich. 160, 168, 324 N.W.2d 9 (1982) ; McGregor v Carney , 271 Mich. 278, 280, 260 N.W. 163 (1935) ; and 11A Callaghan's Michigan Pleading & Practice (2d ed.), § 92.12, p. 580. In other words, "[t]he doctrine of lach......
-
DeVisser v. Secretary of State
...that results in prejudice to a party." Id ., citing Lothian v Detroit , 414 Mich. 160, 168, 324 N.W.2d 9 (1982) ; McGregor v Carney , 271 Mich. 278, 280, 260 N.W. 163 (1935) ; and 11A Callaghan's Michigan Pleading & Practice (2d ed.), § 92.12, p. 580. In other words, "[t]he doctrine of lach......
-
Public Health Dept. v. Rivergate Manor
...material condition that results in prejudice to a party. Lothian v. Detroit, 414 Mich. 160, 168, 324 N.W.2d 9 (1982); McGregor v. Carney, 271 Mich. 278, 280, 260 N.W. 163 (1935); 11A Callaghan, Michigan Pleading & Practice (2d ed.), § 92,12, p. Assuming that the department's delay in filing......