Portman v. State Fish Com'rs Board
| Decision Date | 27 February 1883 |
| Citation | 15 N.W. 106,50 Mich. 258 |
| Parties | PORTMAN v. STATE FISH COM'RS' BOARD. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
The superintendent of fisheries is not an officer within the meaning of the constitution and laws of the state. He is an employe of the board, subject to their orders, and they have power to terminate at any time the contract relations existing between the board and the superintendency.
If there is a breach of contract there may be a claim for damages, but mandamus will not lie.
James H. Campbell, for relator.
John H. Bissell, Atty. Gen. J.J. Van Riper, and Otto Kirchner, for respondent.
We are of opinion that the superintendent of fisheries is not an officer within the meaning of the constitution and laws of this state. That he is an employe of the board, subject to their orders and directions, and that they have power to terminate at any time the contract relations existing between the board and superintendent. This is absolutely necessary to the efficiency of the work which the board was created to perform, and any other view would render the board to a great extent subservient to the will of the superintendent. If there has been a breach of contract relator may have a claim for damages, but mandamus would not be the proper remedy.
It follows that the relief prayed for must be denied.
(The other justices concurred.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trainor v. Board of Auditors
...offices as the courts would concern themselves about in quo warranto proceedings. See People v. De Mill, 15 Mich. 182; Portman v. Fish Com'rs, 50 Mich. 258, 15 N.W. 106; Attorney General v. Cain, 84 Mich. 223, 47 484; Throop v. Langdon, 40 Mich. 686. By these cases it is settled that a chie......
-
Fuller v. Ellis
... ... relator claims the office of warden of the state house of ... correction, and applies for a mandamus [98 ... the board of control to pass upon the charges, by reason of ... the ... It was so held in the case of ... Portman v. Fish Com'rs, 50 Mich. 258, 15 N.W ... 106, in which ... ...
-
Attorney Gen. v. McCaughey
...would not lie in this state, as policemen are expressly recognized by our statute as being public officers. In Portman v. Commissioners, 50 Mich, 258, 15 N. W. 106, it was held that the superintendent of fisheries of the state was not an "officer," within the meaning of the constitution and......
-
People v. Cain
... ... created by the state. (2) The alleged office of policeman of ... the city of ... third person in the place. It was held in Portman v ... [84 Mich. 228] Commissioners, 50 Mich. 258, 15 N.W ... of the board of fish commissioners and removable at their ... pleasure ... ...