People ex rel. Houghton County v. Auditor-General
| Decision Date | 11 January 1861 |
| Citation | 9 Mich. 141 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The People on the relation of Houghton County v. The Auditor-General |
Heard January 9, 1861
Motion for a mandamus.
Relator entitled to a mandamus.
D Goodwin, for the motion.
C Upson, Attorney-General, contra.
The petitioner claims, as a county of the upper peninsula, one-half of the specific taxes which have been paid into the state treasury by mining corporations situated in Houghton county paying a specific tax of one per cent. It appears that a balance of $ 10,851.03 remains unpaid to the county, and for the issuing of a warrant by the auditor-general a mandamus is now asked of this court.
This is resisted partly on the ground that the application to the auditor-general is not in due form, and partly because it is claimed there has been no legal appropriation.
It appears that the county authorities have been in communication with the auditor-general a long time, and that, after various inquiries and negotiations, he furnished a tabular statement exhibiting the balance before mentioned.
The county clerk thereupon drew a draft upon the state treasurer, payable to the order of the county treasurer, expressly made on behalf of the county. This draft was, by a special indorsement not negotiable, made payable to the Hon. Daniel Goodwin, as attorney of the county, who held his appointment and powers under a full authority obtained from the supervisors of the county. The statute (Compiled Laws, § 990) directs the money to be paid to the treasurer of the county upon the written order of the county clerk. Whether such an order would be negotiable it is unnecessary for us to decide, as in the case before us a proper county agent is the only person who has been intrusted with its custody. We think the order sufficient in form and substance, connected as it is with the previous action of the authorities of which we have proof. It is properly directed to the treasurer, inasmuch as he is the custodian of the funds, although the auditor's warrant is also necessary to authorize him to pay the money out of the treasury, and his payment except upon such warrant is forbidden: Comp. L., § 171.
The only important question is, whether there has been a sufficient appropriation to authorize the auditor's action. By section 7 of article 19 of the constitution, it is declared that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Ambler v. Auditor General
...St. Mary's Falls Ship Canal Co. v. Aud. Gen., 7 Mich. 84, where the State had contracted to remit taxes on canal lands; People ex rel. Throop v. Aud. Gen., 9 Mich. 134, where military bounty lands were held exempt; People rel. Houghton County v. Auditor Genl., 9 Mich. 141, where specific ta......
-
State v. Anderson
...that instrument would seem to be sufficiently regarded by the actual appropriation in pursuance of a law to that effect." In People v. Auditor General, 9 Mich. 141, the said: "The statute of 1853 (Comp. L. § 990) provides that one-half of the taxes received or which may be hereafter receive......