People ex rel. Yates v. Atty. Gen.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1879 |
| Citation | 41 Mich. 728,3 N.W. 205 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. HENRY YATES v. ATTORNEY GENERAL. PEOPLE ex rel. ROBERT COOK v. ATTORNEY GENERAL. |
The attorney general has, under the statute, a discretion in filing information in the nature of quo warranto against corporations, which cannot be interfered with by this court except for abuse.
Alfred Russell, for relator.
One of these relators holds bonds against the Detroit & Milwaukee Railway Company, and the other an unsatisfied judgment against the Detroit & Milwaukee Railway Company, a second corporation succeeding to the first. A foreclosure having been had in chancery upon mortgages made by both of these companies, one of which secured the bonds in question (neither of these two relators being personally parties or in any way represented in the purchase at the chancery sale,) an arrangement was made between the Great Western Railway of Canada and certain of the bondholders for bidding off the mortgaged property, including the road, and lands and equipments, and all the franchises connected with its management, and putting the concern into the hands of a purchasing committee, who were to procure a new incorporation, which claimed the entire property and franchises of the old company. This new company is known as the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railroad Company.
Relator now asks a mandamus against the attorney general, who has declined to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto, to inquire by what right this new corporation assumes to exercise the franchises of the old one. Security has been tendered to him.
The statute in question, authorizing information to be filed on leave of this court in such cases, contains the following provision, supposed to warrant the present application "And it shall be the duty of the attorney general whenever he shall have good reason to believe that the same can be established by proof, to file such information in every case of public interest; and, also, in every other case in which satisfactory security shall be given to indemnify the people of this state against all costs and expenses to be incurred thereby."
The attorney general is said to insist that he has a discretion not to file informations on application of a relator, unless he has reason to believe that a case can be made out, nor even then unless the proceedings can benefit the relator in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial