Newberg v. Donnelly
| Decision Date | 01 July 1926 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 409. |
| Parties | NEWBERG v. DONNELLY, Judge. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Bay County; Samuel G. Houghton, Judge.
Petition by Oscar Newberg against James Donnelly, Judge of Probate of Bay County, to compel dismissal of an action against him in defendant's court. To review a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff brings certiorari. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Argued before BIRD, C. J., and SHARPE, SNOW, STEERE, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ. Collins & Thompson, of Bay City, for relator.
Patterson & Smith, of Bay City, for respondent.
On August 24, 1925, plaintiff was holding the office of director of school district No. 2 of Fraser township, Bay county, pursuant to his election thereto. On that day a petition for his recall, purporting to be signed by 29 qualified electors of the district, was filed with the defendant, judge of probate of said county. The reasons for such recall were thus stated:
‘That the said Oscar Newberg did willfully, maliciously, and without just cause, and in abuse of his lawful discretion, refuse to rehire as school teacher in said district for the school year 1925-1926, Miss Genevieve Warren, the said Miss Warren having been the district teacher for two preceding school years, and she, the said Miss Warren, being a competent teacher, and desired by the electors and parents in the said district, and because the said Oscar Newberg in a mass meeting at the school-house in May, 1925, did say that he would run the school district to suit himself, and he did not care what the electors and parents in the district desired, and because the said Oscar Newberg had intimidated the other members of the school board, and causes them to vote on all questions as he desires.’
Plaintiff requested the defendant to dismiss the petition for reasons hereinafter stated, and, on his refusal to do so, petitioned the circuit court to compel such action. On return to the order to show cause, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's petition. This order the plaintiff here reviews by certiorari.
Act No. 325, Pub. Acts 1913 (1 Comp. Laws 1915, § 3988 et seq.), Act No. 44, Pub. Acts 1917, provides for the recall by the electors of certain elective officers. Section 2 provides that petition for the recall of school officials shall be filed with the probate judge, and ‘shall be signed by at least twenty-five per centum of the number of electors who voted for the Governor at the last preceding election in the election district of the official sought to be recalled.’
This section further provides that the petition ‘shall be printed or typewritten, and shall state clearly the reason or reasons for said demand.’
Section 3 provides that the recall ballot to be used, if a special election be ordered, ‘shall have printed thereon, in not more than two hundred words, the reason or reasons for demanding the recall of said officer as set forth in said petition, and in not more than two hundred words, the officer's justification of his course of office.’
The plaintiff contends: (1) That the recall statute ‘is unconstitutional, and is not workable or practicable in school elections' in country districts, for the reason that ‘there is no way of telling the number of votes cast for Governor in that district at the last election’; and (2) that the petition does not set forth sufficient reasons to authorize action on the part of the defendant.
1. As to the first contention the trial court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bower, In re
...Peterkin v. City Council, 95 W.Va. 502, 121 S.E. 489; People ex rel. Elliott v. O'Hara, 246 Mich. 312, 224 N.W. 384; Newberg v. Donnelly, 235 Mich. 531, 209 N.W. 572; Joyner v. Shuman (Fla.App.), 116 So.2d 472) are cited by appellants in support of their position, although appellants' couns......
-
Noel v. Oakland County Clerk
...reasons for recall must be clearly stated in the petition. The statute received its first interpretation in Newberg v. Donnelly, 235 Mich. 531, 534-535, 209 N.W. 572, 574 (1926). There the Court "It provides that the petition 'shall state clearly the reason or reasons' for recall. This stat......
-
Whitmer v. Bd. of State Canvassers
...a recall was to "furnish information to the electors on which they may form a judgment when called upon to vote." Newberg v. Donnelly , 235 Mich. 531, 534, 209 N.W. 572 (1926). Our Supreme Court further explained that although the statement needed to be "sufficiently clear," it did not need......
-
Molitor v. Miller
...of nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in office, but that the specificity requirements enunciated in Newberg (Newberg v. Donnelly, 235 Mich. 531, 209 N.W.2d 572 (1976)) and its progeny remain extant. Indeed, in holding that the sufficiency of the reasons in a recall petition is an elec......