N. Main Land Co. v. Willson
| Decision Date | 07 January 1929 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 462. |
| Citation | 222 N.W. 705,245 Mich. 537 |
| Parties | NORTH MAIN LAND CO. et al. v. WILLSON et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Oakland County; Frank L. Covert, Judge.
Petition for mandamus by the North Main Land Company and another against Albert W. Willson and others, to require the Township Board of Royal Oak Township to hold an election. To review the judgment of the circuit court, plaintiffs bring certiorari. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Harry J. Merritt and W. C. Hudson, both of Royal Oak, for plaintiffs.
A. L. Moore, of Pontiac, for respondents.
This is certiorari to review mandamus.
Qualified signers, sufficient in number, petitioned the board of supervisors for Oakland county to adopt a resolution, in accordance with Act No. 279, Public Acts 1919, directing an election be held in the township and city of Royal Oak, on a day designated, to determine whether specified territory should be detached from the township and annexed to the city. Power of the board of supervisors to direct such an election was conferred by Act No. 279, Public Acts 1909, and amendments thereto. By mistake the petition made reference to a statute wholly foreign to the subject. The mistake was noticed by the board; the prosecuting attorney advised the board that the petition, in that respect, might be amended by the board; the amendment was made by the board and a special election ordered to be held on November 8, 1927, and due notice thereof was given to the township and city officials. The township board declined to hold the special election unless the expense thereof, in the sum of $1,100, was put up by petitioners. Thereupon plaintiffs herein petitioned the circuit court for the county of Oakland for a writ of mandamus, directing the township board to hold the election. In answer to an order to show cause the township board claimed that the petition for the election was void because of the mentioned mistake, and the amendment thereto a nullity, and that the special election would cost $1,100 and there was no money in the township treasury to meet such expense. The circuit judge found the action by the board of supervisors legal, and ordered the township board to hold the election. It was then too late for the township to comply with the necessary preliminaries to an election on November 8, 1927, and plaintiffs requested the court to set a new date. This the court felt was a matter solely within the province of the board of supervisors and declined to set another date.
Three questions are presented: (1) Was it legal to amend or rather correct the petition? (2) Was the township bound to hold the election at its own expense? (3) Had the court power to set a new election day?
1. The petition needed no amendment. The mistake was patent, but not with reference to essential subject-matter, and was therefore mere surplusage. It was not necessary in the petition to point...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Beaverton Power Co. v. Wolverine Power Co.
-
Clark v. Ardery
... ... perform the act itself. See 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, § 341, and ... North Main Land Co. et al. v. Willson, 245 Mich ... 537, 222 N.W. 705 ... There ... is ... ...
-
Clark v. Ardery
...of an act, it does not have the authority to perform the act itself. See 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, sec. 341, and North Main Land Co. et al. v. Wilson, 245 Mich. 537, 222 N.W. 705. There is yet another objection to the judgment under attack. Even if construed as directing the Board to act, the or......
-
Benjamin v. City of Huntington Woods
...is not rendered void by the erroneous citation of the wrong statute when no statute is required to be cited. North Mainland Co. v. Willson, 245 Mich. 537, 222 N.W. 705; Thomson v. City of Dearborn, 348 Mich. 23, 81 N.W.2d The second issue requires consideration of a recent amendment to the ......