People ex rel. Mead v. Treasurer of Ingham County
| Decision Date | 24 April 1877 |
| Citation | 36 Mich. 416 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The People on the relation of James I. Mead v. The Treasurer of Ingham County |
Heard April 17, 1877
Application for mandamus.
Writ denied.
S. F Seager and H. B. Carpenter, for relator.
H. P Henderson, for respondent.
The board of supervisors of Ingham county, at a special meeting in March last, passed a resolution to remove from office two of the county superintendents of the poor, namely: Messrs. Hayner and Huntington, and to appoint in their place Messrs. Craddock and Williams. Both Hayner and Huntington had some time to serve. The relator was the third superintendent under an appointment made previously, and was not disturbed.
This proceeding by the supervisors was caused by conflicting action concerning the purchase of a poor-house farm for the county, a majority being of the opinion that Messrs. Hayner and Huntington had violated faith with the supervisors in certain transactions connected with the purchase and had attempted a fraud on the county, and it was upon this ground that the resolution was based. It was not founded on the authority contained in subdivision 14 of section 11 of the general act defining the powers and duties of boards of supervisors.--§ 477, C. L. They were not complained of for any neglect to report or give bonds, and the resolution failed to receive the vote required by that statute.
Having passed the resolution to oust Hayner and Huntington, and to put Craddock and Williams in their place, the supervisors ordered the respondent to pay all orders signed by a majority of the board of superintendents, made up of relator, Craddock and Williams.
A few days afterwards, and on March 19, the relator and Craddock and Williams met, and assuming to be the board of superintendents, united in drawing an order in favor of one Woodworth or bearer for six dollars and forty-four cents on the respondent, and he refused to pay it, on the ground, in substance, that Craddock and Williams were not superintendents, and hence that the order was not sanctioned by a majority.
The relator insists that Craddock and Williams were superintendents, and that the order was well drawn, and he asks that a mandamus may be awarded to compel the respondent to pay the order, it being admitted that he has funds applicable to legal orders.
The counsel for relator have not been able to point out any provision giving express power to the board of supervisors to make the removal attempted in this case, and we have not been able to discover any, and we think the argument in favor of implying the power is not well founded.
The statute fixes the term of the superintendents at three years, and the supervisors are required to appoint for such term.--§ 1817, C. L. And under the provision contained in the supervisors' act for making removals the supervisors are empowered to remove on the specific grounds of neglecting or refusing to report or to give bonds.--Ch. 10 C. L., sub. 14, § 477.
The general statute concerning removals (ch. 11 C. L.) contains no provision applicable to superintendents of the poor. Hence there would seem to be no provision for the removal of these officers except the specific regulation in the supervisors' act. It would therefore seem that the legislature meant to confer on the supervisors a power to remove on the two specified grounds, but had no intention to give the right on any other ground, or to delegate to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chamski v. Cowan
...the expiration of such period, unless removed therefrom for cause after a fair trial.’ The court relied upon People ex rel. Mead v. Treasurer of Ingham County, 36 Mich. 416, in which it was said: ‘Our state system favors appointments for fixed periods, and almost entirely rejects the policy......
-
State ex rel. Kane v. Johnson
...to same effect State v. Brice, 7 Ohio St. (part 2), 82; Field v. Commonwealth, 32 Pa. 478; Ham v. Police Board, 142 Mass. 90; Mead v. Treasurer, 36 Mich. 416. Where no term is declared, the constitutional limitation of four years will fix the limit of the term. State, etc., v. Police Com'rs......
-
McGregor v. Board of Supervisors
...v. Akron 48 Mich. 188, 12 N.W. 43; McLaren v. Akron id. 189; as to the power of supervisors to remove from office, see Mead v. Ingham County Treasurer 36 Mich. 416 Gager v. Chippewa Supervisors 47 Mich. 167, 10 N.W. 186; and for the essential conditions to an exercise of the power of remova......
-
Morrilton Waterworks Improvement District v. Earl
... ... "one per centum of the total amount of the county ... assessment of the same property next ... & Eng. Corp. Cases 452; Noonan v ... People (Ill.), 183 Ill. 52, 55 N.E. 679; ... McPike ... ...