People ex rel. Clay v. Stuart

• Decision Date: 12 April 1889
• Citation: 74 Mich. 411,41 N.W. 1091
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE EX REL. CLAY v. STUART.

41 N.W. 1091

74 Mich. 411

PEOPLE EX REL. CLAY v. STUART.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 12, 1889

CHAMPLIN, J.

An information in the nature of a quo warranto was filed in the circuit court for the county of Kent by the relator against the respondent, charging that he had usurped intruded into, and unlawfully held the office of prosecuting attorney of Kent county, to which the relator was entitled by virtue of an election held on the 2d day of November, 1886 at which he was elected prosecuting attorney of Kent county and qualified, and entered upon the duties of the office until the usurpation of Stuart, on the 11th day of May, 1888. The respondent filed an answer, in which he set forth that on the 7th day of February, 1888, one Israel C. Smith, a citizen and resident of the city of Grand Rapids, in said county exhibited to Cyrus G. Luce, the governor of the state certain charges in writing, setting forth that said Samuel D Clay had been guilty of official misconduct as such prosecuting attorney, and in his office and administration of said office of prosecuting attorney, which charges and specifications were particularly set out in the answer; and he prayed the governor to make inquiry into the charges, and that said Clay might be removed from the office of prosecuting attorney for such official misconduct. That such charges were accompanied with the certificate of the attorney general that in his opinion said charges demanded investigation. That the governor directed an investigation to be had, which, upon due notice to said Clay, was had at Grand Rapids, Mich., in said county, before Hon. CYRUS E. PERKINS, judge of probate of said county. That testimony was taken, reviewed, and certified by the judge of probate as required by law, and returned to the governor, who after due notice, and hearing the said Samuel D. Clay in his own defense, on, to-wit, the 1st day of May, 1888, the said governor became satisfied that said Samuel D. Clay, as such prosecuting attorney, had been guilty of such official misconduct in the occupancy and administration of said office, and in due form of law removed said Samuel D. Clay from said office of prosecuting attorney, and declared the said office vacant. That thereafter, and on the 5th day of May, 1888, Hon. ROBERT M. MONTGOMERY, the judge of the circuit court for the county of Kent, duly appointed the respondent, William J. Stuart, to the office of prosecuting attorney of said county of Kent until the 1st day of January, 1889, or until his successor in office should be chosen and qualified. That he duly accepted the appointment, and qualified thereunder, and entered upon the duties and privileges of said office, and denied the usurpation and intrusion charged. To this answer the relator demurred. The cause was heard in the circuit court, and demurrer overruled, with leave to reply. He refused to do so, and judgment was entered for respondent, and against the relator, for costs. The case is brought before us on a case made after judgment. Article 12, � 7, of the constitution of this state, reads as follows: "The legislature shall provide by law for the removal of...