People ex rel. Bristow v. Supervisobs of MacOmb Co.
| Decision Date | 01 January 1855 |
| Citation | 3 Mich. 475 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The People ex rel. Bristow v. Supervisobs of Macomb Co |
This was an application for a peremptory mandamus, to compel the board of supervisors of the county of Macomb, to allow the relator the amount of a certain claim.
By the evidence submitted to the court in support of the application, it appeared that one Anna Craton, a resident of the village of Mt. Clemens, in said county, was in the month of April, 1853, seized with the small pox, and removed by order of the board of health of said village, into the dwelling house of the relator, where he, under the employ of said board of health, nursed and took care of her for the period of twenty-six days; procured her necessary washing to be done, and made one journey to the city of Detroit; that these services were adjusted and fixed by said board of health, at fifty-six dollars, and that neither the said Anna her parents, nor any other person liable for her support were able to pay the same. That the relator presented this claim as adjusted and fixed by said board of health, to the board of supervisors of the said county of Macomb, at their annual meeting held in October of that year, for allowance by whom it was at once rejected; said board refusing even to hear any proof of the fact in support of the claim.
On application at the last January term of the court, an order was granted requiring said board of supervisors to show cause, if any they had, why a peremptory mandamus should not issue against them, etc.
This order, together with copies of the affidavits, upon which the same was granted, were subsequently served on said board, at which time they not only absolutely refused to acknowledge service, or to have any entry of the fact made upon their journal, but publicly announced that "the supreme court had nothing to do with them." No cause having been shown by the board, the court, at the present term, was again moved for a peremptory mandamus.
Application granted, with the costs of application.
H. D. Terry, for the relator.
There was no appearance for the respondents.
By the Court, Pratt, J. The first question which this application for a mandamus presents for consideration is, whether the county of Macomb is liable for the claim of the relator.
The statute provides that "when any person from abroad, or residing in any town within the state, shall be infected with the small pox, or other sickness dangerous to the public health, the board of health shall make effectual provision, in the manner in which they shall judge best for the safety of the inhabitants, by removing such sick or infected person to a separate house, etc., and by providing nurses, and other assistance and necessaries which shall be at the charge of the person, his parents, or other person liable for his support, if able, otherwise at the charge of the county." R. S. 1846, p. 163, § 15.
This is not only a very plain but a very just and salutary provision of law, which is binding alike upon boards, of health, supervisors, and courts, and which should not only be respected but efficiently enforced.
The evidence submitted to the court in support of this application, and which is not in any manner controverted, shows conclusively that the board of health necessarily incurred the expenses which constitute the claim in question, in the discharge of their official duty, under the provisions of the statute referred to; that the infected person was a resident of the county of Macomb, and that neither herself, her parents, nor any other person liable for her support, were able to pay these expenses; consequently, they become a legal charge to the county. The county being thus liable, it was the official duty of the board of supervisors of that county to receive and allow the claim.
This official duty was unconditionally imposed upon them by law, and in discharging it they could not exercise their own whim, or be governed by their own caprice in the matter. The expenses were incurred, adjusted and fixed by the board of health, under the statute, and on a claim of this kind, it would be the duty of the board of supervisors to institute inquiry, and to hear proof touching the ability of the patient, or other person liable therefor, to pay them, and if found unable, then it would become their duty to allow the claim, and make provision for the payment of it. In this they would act in their executive capacity, which is the only legal capacity in which they could act in the discharge of this particular duty.
The only remaining question to be considered is, whether this court has the power to compel the board of supervisors, by mandamus, to receive and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Employees and Judge of Second Judicial Dist. Court, Second Div. v. Hillsdale County
...It is absolutely correct that there is a doctrine of statutory power as well as a doctrine of constitutional inherent power. People v. Macomb Co., 3 Mich. 475 (1855); Sturgis v. Allegan Co., 343 Mich. 209, 72 N.W.2d 56 (1955); Jail Inmates v. Wayne Co. Sheriff, 391 Mich. 359, 216 N.W.2d 910......
-
Judges for Third Judicial Circuit v. Wayne County
...constitutional provision does not entitle the board to reject claims required to be paid by State law. People ex rel. Bristow v. Supervisors of Macomb County (1855), 3 Mich. 475; Board of Supervisors of Arenac County v. Board of Supervisors of Iosco County (1906), 144 Mich. 52, 107 N.W. 725......
-
Teasel v. Department of Mental Health
...a county board of supervisors to act in their executive capacity and to pay an obligation imposed by law, People ex rel. Bristow v. Macomb County Supervisors, 3 Mich. 475 (1855). We have issued a writ of mandamus compelling the expenditure of withheld funds that by law could only be used fo......
-
Chem. Bank & Trust Co. v. Oakland Cnty.
...Mich. 367, 47 N. W. 227); and the writ has been often exercised to compel such bodies or officers to reverse their decisions (People v. Supervisors, 3 Mich. 475;People v. Auditors, 13 Mich. 233).’ Tennant v. Crocker, 85 Mich. 328, at page 339, 48 N. W. 577, 580. 2. There was no impropriety ......