People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Lothrop
| Decision Date | 04 January 1872 |
| Citation | 24 Mich. 235 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The People on the relation of the Attorney-General v. George V. N. Lothrop |
Heard January 3, 1872
Information in the nature of a quo warranto.
Dwight May, Attorney-General, in person, for the relator.
George V. N. Lothrop, in person, for the respondent.
This is a proceeding to try the right of the respondent to the office of park commissioner of the city of Detroit. He was one of the commissioners named in the act of incorporation, and the case shows that the board organized on the 20th of July, 1871, and were classified for different terms according to the statute. Subsequently, after selecting a location for a park, in October, 1871, the location was reported by the board to the common council of the city on the 21st day of November. The council, on the 8th day of December, approved the location and adopted the resolutions required by the statute, to provide for carrying the plan into effect. The mayor having returned their resolutions without his approval, and with a statement of his objections to the measure, the council, by the necessary vote passed the resolutions over his veto on the 19th day of December, 1871, and the mayor, thereafter, on the 20th day of December, called a freemen's meeting to pass upon the question of issuing bonds, in accordance with the act of incorporation.
The functions of these commissioners are local, and municipal, and, as held by us in the cases decided under the public works bill, their selection cannot properly be made without the assent of the local people or authorities. The board have not only completed their organization, but have gone on with the most important part of their duties. And if they do not represent the will of the municipality in some way, it will be difficult to hold them entitled to act in its affairs.
But we think the facts in the case are such as to preclude any further dispute concerning the validity of their appointment. There has been no dissent during the time when they were acting under the law, but we are not informed by the record how far such silence alone would render it inequitable to object to their tenure. But when the board communicated directly with the council and reported their action for adoption and confirmation, it became incumbent on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shepherd v. San Jacinto Junior College Dist.
...N.Y. 447. The cases of State v. Bunker, 59 Me. 366; People [ex rel. Attorney General] v. Salomon, 54 Ill. 41, and People [ex rel. Attorney General] v. Lothrop, 24 Mich. 235, are in the same direction. The legislature has recognized this principle with special reference to school districts, ......
-
Ex Parte Tracey
...a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such. And see Hamilton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 51 S. W. 218; People v. Lothrop, 24 Mich. 235. Some of the above cases hold that, even where the officer was inducted or appointed by unconstitutional methods, he would still be ......
-
Auditor General v. Board of Sup'rs of Menominee County
...of the office. Acquiescence, under such circumstances, has all the force and quality of ratification or confirmation. See Attorney General v. Lothrop, 24 Mich. 235. is another well-settled rule of law upon which the validity of the act in question may be safely rested, viz., that "the valid......
-
Moreland v. Millen
...It is said the appointment for a fixed term by state authority to a purely local municipal office is not wholly void; citing People v. Lothrop, 24 Mich. 235. The opinion in case is a very short one. It holds that the functions of the commissioners are local and municipal, and their appointm......