People ex rel. Martin v. The Board of Auditors of The County of Wayne
| Decision Date | 10 June 1858 |
| Citation | 5 Mich. 223 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The People on the relation of Stephen Martin v. The Board of Auditors of the County of Wayne |
Heard June 9, 1858
Petition for mandamus.
The relator presented his petition to this court, setting forth in substance that prior to April, A. D. 1858, he was an acting justice of the peace of Detroit; that, in that month he made out his account against the county of Wayne, for services rendered as such justice in criminal proceedings which account amounted to $ 100.50, and was presented to, and allowed by, the board of auditors of said county, on the 16th day of April, 1858; that, upon making application to said board for their warrant upon the county treasurer for the amount of said claim, the said board and the clerk thereof verbally refused to issue such warrant, and still refuse so to do. He, therefore, prays that an order may be made requiring said board to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to issue such warrant, and deliver the same to relator.
The court thereupon made an order that said board of auditors issue and deliver to the relator their warrant on the county treasurer, for the amount of the account so allowed, or show cause before this court why a mandamus should not issue to compel them so to do, within ten days after service of said order upon their clerk.
J. Van Rensselaer, as attorney for said board, at the expiration of the ten days, presented an answer to said application. The answer, which was verified by the affidavits of the clerk of the board and county treasurer, admits the facts stated in the petition; shows that, on the allowance of said account the board caused a warrant to be drawn on the county treasurer, and signed by their clerk and chairman; that, before its delivery to the relator, a constable of the city of Detroit, by virtue of an execution against the relator, levied upon said warrant, and left with said board a certificate of such levy; and that said warrant, being payable to the relator or bearer, said constable presented the same to the county treasurer, and demanded and received payment thereon.
C. E. Eddie, for relator.
The Chief Justice:
The answer in this case is clearly insufficient. The relator was entitled to the warrant of the board, upon the county treasurer, for the amount allowed him, and it is no sufficient reply to his application therefor that the board made out the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harvey v. Lewis
...(1898), 116 Mich, 493, 74 N.W. 717; School District No. Thirteen, etc. v. Dean (1868), 17 Mich. 223; People ex rel. Martin v. Board of Auditors of Wayne County (1858), 5 Mich. 223. The question as posed of whether there is immunity from taxation of costs because of public policy need not be......
-
McBride v. City of Grand Rapids
... ... 238] costs from the county; ... and, fourth, for money paid into the ... Township of Wise, 42 Mich. 573; ... People v. Board of Auditors of Wayne, 13 Mich. 233; ... ...
-
Buchoz v. Pray
... ... legislation (Clare County v. Auditor General 41 ... Mich. 182, 1 N.W. 926) ... respondent was a public officer or board that had acted in ... good faith (Parkhurst v ... Office 17 Mich. 338; Martin v. Wayne County ... Auditors 5 Mich. 223) or ... ...
-
Township of Marathon v. Township of Oregon
...duty is created, and it is this duty that the writ is employed to enforce. Such are, with many others, the cases in 2 Mich. 187; 5 Mich. 223; Cow. 292; 10 Wend. 363; 16 Wend. 520; 4 Barb. 64; 20 Barb. 295; 4 Zab. 54; 22 Pick. 264; 3 Wis. 333. 3. Even if mandamus might be a lawful remedy, it......