Price v. Twp. Bd. of Oakfield

• Decision Date: 25 July 1914
• Docket Number: No. 341.,341.
• Citation: 182 Mich. 216,148 N.W. 438
• Parties: PRICE v. TOWNSHIP BOARD OF OAKFIELD.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

182 Mich. 216

148 N.W. 438

PRICE

v.TOWNSHIP BOARD OF OAKFIELD.

No. 341.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 25, 1914.

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Kent County; William B. Brown, Judge.

Mandamus, on the relation of Raymond A. Price, against Township Board of Oakfield. Judgment for relator, of defendant brings certiorari. Affirmed.

Argued before McALVAY, C. J., and BROOKE, KUHN, MOORE, STONE, OSTRANDER, BIRD, and STEERE, JJ. Elvert M. Davis, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Thompson & Temple, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

STONE, J.

This case is before us upon a writ of certiorari to review the action of the circuit court in a mandamus proceeding instituted by relator to compel the township board to reconvene and approve a liquor bond or relator. For some time prior to instituting such mandamus proceeding the relator had been engaged in the business of a retail liquor dealer, conducting a saloon at Harvard, in said Oakfield township. Desiring to continue such business, he, upon due application, presented his bond for approval. In his petition for mandamus the relator stated that, on April 27, 1914, the said board being duly convened with all its members present, a motion was made to support and approve said bond, when counsel for relator, and in his behalf, asked if there was any objection to the manner in which relator had conducted said business, to which inquiry the said board, by its members individually, answered that there was none; that said counsel then asked if there was any objection to the bond, when the said board replied there was none; that thereupon the supervisor stated that there was no objection, but that he did not want a saloon at Harvard, whereupon the said board proceeded to vote upon said motion; that, upon the vote being had, two of its members, to wit, E. Griswold and J. C. Berry, voted, ‘Yes,’ and two of its members, to wit, Seth C. Partridge and George Lewis, voted ‘No,’ and thereupon said Seth C. Partridge, supervisor, declared the same to be a tie vote, and he then and there voted, ‘No,’ and also declared the motion lost. Upon the hearing in the mandamus proceeding the circuit court held that the supervisor had no power to cast a second vote upon the motion under consideration, and issued the writ of mandamus as prayed for. In his application for the writ of certiorari the supervisor, in behalf of the township board, stated that by the vote above set forth-two in the affirmative and two in the negative-there was a tie in the vote, and that he, as presiding officer, again voted, ‘No,’ and then and there declared that the said bond had been rejected by a majority vote of said township board.

It is alleged that the circuit court erred in finding, as matter of law, that: (a) The said supervisor was not authorized, as presiding officer of said board, and also as a lawful member of said board, to vote first upon the question of the approval of the said bond, and, in case of a tie vote upon such question, to vote as presiding officer and cast a vote for the purpose of breaking such tie; (b) that the circuit court was in error in finding, as matter of law, that the said liquor bond was not, by the action of the township board at such meeting, rejected by a majority vote of such board.

It appears from the record, as well as from the briefs of counsel, that the circuit court and counsel for both parties considered that the question of the rejection of the bond of relator by said board was involved in the proceeding. The following questions are discussed by counsel:

(1) Has a supervisor, acting as a member of a township board at a meeting thereof where he is presiding, the right to cast a deciding vote (or vote to break a tie) where he has already voted in producing the tie vote?

(2) Has a township board the constitutional right to reject by a majority vote any or all liquor bonds presented to it for its approval?

[1] I. Section 18 of Article 8 of the Constitution provides that there shall be elected annually in each township one supervisor whose powers and duties shall be prescribed by law.

Section 2343, Compiled Laws, provides that the supervisor, the two justices of the peace whose terms of office soonest expire, and the township clerk, shall constitute a township board, any three of whom shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

The next section of the statute provides that when, from any cause, there shall not be three of the officers constituting such board, competent or able to act, one of the remaining justices, on being notified by any member of said board, shall meet with any members of the board and shall have the same authority as the other members of the board.

It has been held by this court that in case a justice is thus called in, the board thus constituted has all the powers of the statutory board. First National Bank of St. Joseph v. St. Joseph, 46 Mich. 526, 9 N. W. 838.

[2] The Legislature has never made any provision as to which member of the township board shall be the presiding officer. The voting powers of the members of the board appear to be equal. We have no doubt that it is perfectly competent for any member of the board to preside over its deliberations. If the supervisor were absent and one of the remaining justices should be called in, we have no doubt that it would be perfectly legal for such justice to act as presiding officer, for the statute says that ‘he shall have the same authority as the other members of the board.’

Our attention has not been called to any case where, under such circumstances as appear here, any member of the body may have the right to a casting vote. Authority may be found to the effect that the right of such casting vote may be given by express...