People ex rel. Elliot v. O'Hara
| Decision Date | 29 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 485. |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. ELLIOT v. O'HARA, Judge of Probate. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Dickinson County; Frank A. Bell, Judge.
Proceeding by the People, on the relation of I. Stow Elliot, against John O'Hara, Judge of Probate, Dickinson County, for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to dismiss a petition and countermand an order for a recall election. The writ was denied, and relator brings certiorari. Writ denied.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Glenn W. Jackson, of Gladstone (Ray E. MacAllister, of Iron Mountain, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Ray Derham, of Iron Mountain, for defendant.
This is certiorari to review judgment denying writ of mandamus to compel the judge of probate of Dickinson county to dismiss petition and countermand an order for a recall election.
Plaintiff was re-elected township treasurer in April, 1928, and qualified. The petition for his recall contained three charges:
(a) That he had violated the Corrupt Practices Act in failing to file a statement of the expenses of his nomination and election as township treasurer in 1927.
(b) That he had been given $140 by the township board to employ an assistant, had paid the assistant only $80 of the amount for that purpose, and had converted the balance to his own use.
(c) That he had brought suit against the township, without reason or just cause, to collect moneys to which he was not legally entitled.
Aside from questions affecting practice, the issue is whether the statement of reasons in the petition was sufficient to justify a recall election.
The statute (Act 325, Pub. Acts 1913) requires the petition to ‘state clearly the reason or reasons for said demand.’ It provides that the ballots shall have the reasons printed on them, together with the ‘officer's justification of his course of office.’ In Newberg v. Donnelly, 235 Mich. 531, 209 N. W. 572, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Sharpe, said:
‘The purpose of the statute is not to permit another election to be called at which electors who did not participate in that which was held might vote. If so, new elections might be constantly held and a change in the official every few months might be effected. Nor, in our opinion, is its purpose to permit a more suitable or popular candidate to be voted for than the one who opposed the official when he was elected.
‘It provides that the petition
Read in connection with the facts of the case, the ruling was that a petition is insufficient which merely charges an officer with doing what he has the legal right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bower, In re
...Cases from three jurisdictions (State ex rel. 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......
-
Noel v. Oakland County Clerk
...act or failure to act, which, in the absence of a sufficient justification, would warrant the recall." People ex rel. Elliot v. O'Hara, 246 Mich. 312, 314-315, 224 N.W. 384, 385 (1929), construing Newberg, [92 MICHAPP 185] "Read in connection with the facts of the case, the ruling was that ......
-
Molitor v. Miller
...v. Baker, 334 Mich. 521, 525-526, 55 N.W.2d 77 (1952), the Court summarized them in the following manner: "In People ex rel. Elliot v. O'Hara (246 Mich. 312, 224 N.W.2d 384 (1929)) * * * we * * * stated that an allegation[102 MICHAPP 348] was sufficient when it was 'a specific allegation of......
-
Amberg v. Welsh
...are a court proceeding and those for recall are passed upon by the electors. The leading case in this State is People ex rel. Elliot v. O'Hara, 246 Mich. 312, 224 N.W. 384, 385, wherein Mr. Justice Fead, speaking for the court, stated: ‘It hardly need by pointed out that the recall is funda......