Township of Dayton v. Rounds
| Decision Date | 15 April 1873 |
| Citation | 27 Mich. 82 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The Township of Dayton v. Henry Rounds; and the Township of Dayton v. Robert E. Warren |
Submitted on Briefs April 11, 1873.
Error to Tuscola Circuit.
Judgment reversed, with costs.
B. W Huston, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
M. D Seeley and Minock & Baker, for defendant in error.
Both of these cases are suits to recover upon bounty bonds, issued by the township of Dayton in December, 1863, payable February 10, 1865, and within the terms of the enabling act of February 5, 1864.
By the first section of that act it was declared that these bonds "shall be a valid and lawful claim against the township, county or city having voted, raised, hired, authorized or issued the same, and shall be paid in the same manner as the ordinary township, county or city expenses are paid."--Comp. L. 1871, § 927.
By the fourth section it is provided that "the claims and liabilities herein declared to be valid" "shall be assessed, levied, collected and paid, in the same manner as ordinary claims and liabilities are assessed, levied and paid."--§ 930.
Section 2 requires the allowance and payment of such claims, except as therein otherwise provided, to be made in the same manner as ordinary claims are allowed and paid. Section 5 requires the township clerks to certify each year to the supervisors the amount of such indebtedness, to be incorporated in the assessment roll.
It was evidently the design of the Legislature to put these bonds on the footing of established liabilities against the township, to be presented, like other claims, for orders on the treasury, to the township board. All moneys drawn from the treasury for their payment were to be upon the customary orders. If the bonds were actually issued by the township, the law declared them valid, and permitted no inquiry into that question. But it did not dispense with the necessity of seeking their payment in the ordinary way.
A remedy by action is not the proper remedy in such a case. And any refusal by the town officers to do their duty should be redressed by mandamus. A township ought not to be subjected to the expense of a suit upon such a claim when the law requires it to be presented to a board for allowance. Such has been the settled practice in this State for many years.-- People ex rel. Anderson v. Township Board of La Grange, 2 Mich. 187; Marathon v. Oregon, 8...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The County of Grundy v. Hughes
...claim is legal and binding upon the county, the remedy is by a writ of mandamus: Giddings v. Quartermaster General, 25 Mich. 340; Dayton v. Rounds, 27 Mich. 82. Counties are not liable to pay interest, except in case where there is an express agreement to do so: The County of Pike v. Hosfor......
-
City of Detroit v. Michigan Paving Co.
...held that under such circumstances mandamus was the proper remedy, and not a suit at law.-- Marathon v. Oregon, 8 Mich. 372; Dayton v. Rounds, 27 Mich. 82; Peterson Manistee, 36 Mich. 8. But we also held that on the facts of this case mandamus was not the appropriate remedy, the amount not ......
-
McBride v. City of Grand Rapids
... ... remedy is the only one which will prevent gross injustice ... See Just v. Township of Wise, 42 Mich. 573; ... People v. Board of Auditors of Wayne, 13 Mich. 233; ... Same v. Same, 5 Mich. 223; Peterson v ... Manistee, 36 Mich. 8; Dayton v. Rounds, 27 ... Mich. 82 ... All of ... that part of the case may be disregarded. In ... ...
-
8 OF TOWNSHIP OF ADAMS, Van Wert v. School Dist. No. 8
...execution, but only by official action, which mandamus alone can compel. People v. Supervisors of Macomb Co., 3 Mich. 478; Township of Dayton v. Rounds, 27 Mich. 82; v. Township of Wise, 42 Mich. 573, 4 N.W. 298; People v. Board of Auditors, 13 Mich. 233; Marathon v. Oregon, 8 Mich. 378; Mc......