People ex rel. Hobert v. Supervisor & Town Clerk of Blackman

• Decision Date: 11 July 1866
• Citation: 14 Mich. 336
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: The People ex rel. Hobert v. Supervisor and Town Clerk of Blackman

14 Mich. 336

The People ex rel. Hobert v. Supervisor and Town Clerk of Blackman

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 11, 1866

Heard July 11, 1866

Motion for mandamus to the supervisor and town clerk of Blackman Jackson county, to issue orders for the payment of certain audited claims.

The petition of the relator showed that the electors of the township of Blackman in April, 1865, at the annual township meeting, voted, bye a majority, to refund bounties under the special act for Jackson county: Sess. L. 1865, 477. And further, that no money had been raised in the township previously, which it was generally understood that the town would pay, except the one hundred dollars per man which the law then authorized, and for which bonds were issued. It was not claimed that the township had pledged its credit.

Certain individuals had advanced moneys by private subscription among themselves to raise bounties; and claims to refund such advances were allowed by the township board previous to the decision of Miller v. Grandy (13 Mich. 540). Upon the decision of that case the authorities refused to proceed further to pay these claims.

Mandamus denied.

A Blair, for respondent:

1. The vote of the electors was a nullity, the case never having arisen in which they were authorized by law to pass such a vote.

It was not for a public purpose. The test is not that the act will benefit the public, but whether it is a thing which the public is seeking to do: 13 Mich. 540; 8 Allen 80; 12 Cush 105 and 106.

2. The vote of the electors being void, and the claims being of a class which the town board had no authority by law to allow, their action was without jurisdiction.

The town board being a special and limited jurisdiction, not proceeding according to the course of the common law, its jurisdiction must affirmatively appear upon the record: 1 Comp. L., 239 and 244; 5 Mich. 416, and cases cited.

Though the board acts judicially, it can only do so within the authority conferred upon it by statute. It must confine itself to the class of claims it is authorized to allow, and has no jurisdiction to go beyond that. Neither can it acquire jurisdiction by entering upon the inquiry: 4 Hill 88; 3 Seld. 521; 23 N. Y., 285; 3 Denio 118; 5 Barb. 607.

3. The board, having allowed a large amount of illegal claims through a mistake of the law, ought not to direct orders to pay those claims.

Claims can be paid only by virtue of the order of the board: 1 Comp. L., § 564.

Livermore & Wood, for relator:

1. The board allowed the claims. They acted judicially, and if erroneous, the remedy must be in this court: 2 Sanf. 472; 17 Wend. 120; 15 Conn. 447.

2. The board having allowed the claims and entered up judgment therefor, the supervisor and town clerk cannot refuse to issue the order for payment. Their action is final: 8 Mich. 378.

OPINION

Cooley, J.

The majority...