McLaughlin v. Burroughs
| Decision Date | 18 February 1892 |
| Citation | 51 N.W. 283,90 Mich. 311 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | MCLAUGHLIN et al. v. BURROUGHS, Prosecuting Attorney. |
Application by Joseph R. McLaughlin and others for mandamus to compel Samuel W. Burroughs, prosecuting attorney of Wayne county, to attach a certain statement to a petition for the removal of an alderman. Denied.
Five citizens and electors of the city of Detroit signed a petition, duly verified, to the governor of the state praying for the removal from office of alderman James Lennane, and alleging as the ground for such removal that he was guilty of official misconduct as chairman of the board of election inspectors in the fourth district of the Sixth ward of the city of Detroit, which resulted in the disfranchisement of many electors, at the election held in said city on the 3d day of November, 1891. This petition, accompanied by many affidavits, was presented to the respondent, requesting him to indorse thereon his opinion that the case demanded investigation. On January 22 1892, respondent wrote Mr. McLaughlin a letter, giving at length his reasons for withholding his opinion. The petitioners have applied to this court for the writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to make and attach to said petition a statement that, in his opinion, the case demands investigation. It is unnecessary to discuss the merits of the case made by the petition and the affidavits accompanying it, as we are all of the opinion that this court has no jurisdiction in the matter. It is provided by the constitution: "The legislature shall provide by law for the removal of any officer elected by a county, township, or school-district, in such manner, and for such cause, as to them shall seem just and proper." Article 12, � 7. Under this constitutional provision the legislature has enacted that the governor may remove all county officers chosen by electors of any county or appointed by him, and shall also remove all justices of the peace and township officers chosen by the electors of any township, or city or village officers chosen by the electors of any city or village, when he shall be satisfied from sufficient evidence submitted to him, as provided in the statute, that such officer has been guilty of official misconduct or of willful neglect of duty, etc.; but that the governor shall take no action upon any such charges until the same shall have been exhibited to him in writing verified by the affidavit of the party making them that he believes the charges to be true, "with a statement of the prosecuting attorney of the county that, in his opinion the case demands investigation." How. St. � 653. The respondent, in his answer, alleges that he has examined the petition, and that, in his opinion, the case does not demand investigation. The governor can obtain jurisdiction over the removal of an officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial