Wiley v. Lindsay
| Decision Date | 31 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 300.,300. |
| Parties | WILEY, Atty. Gen., v. LINDSAY. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Original mandamus proceeding by Merlin Wiley, Attorney General, against Richard Lindsay. Writ issued.
Argued before FELLOWS, C. J., and WIEST, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ. Merlin Wiley, Atty. Gen., Andrew B. Dougherty, Dep. Atty. Gen., and Clare Retan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.
Clarence E. Wilcox and Paul T. Dwyer, both of Detroit, for defendant.
The attorney General, upon relation of judge of the recorder's court of the city of Detroit, who are candidates for re-election, seeks by this proceeding to compel defendant city clerk to accept nominating petitions for the spring primary, upon the claim that judges of that court must be elected at the spring election to be held April 2, defendant's refusal to accept and file such petitions being based on his claim that judges of the recorder's court must be elected at the election to be held November 6. The sole question for determination is whether Act 364, Public Acts 1921, is valid. If valid, the defendant is right, and the writ should be refused. If invalid, the plaintiff is right, and the writ should be granted.
It will be noted that the act of 1921, which amended Act 369, Public Acts 1919, contained no referendum clause, and no referendum vote was in fact had. The act of 1919 did require a referendum vote; such vote was had, and the provisions of the act were by such vote made applicable to the recorder's court of the city of Detroit. The failure to submit the act of 1921 to a referendum vote is the sole objection to its validity which we shall consider. The provision of the Constitution invoked is section 30, art. 5, which reads as follows:
The validity of the act of 1919 is conceded. Its character only is before us. It does not purport to, and does not, create a new court for the city of Detroit. It purports to be, and is, supplementary in character. By the referendum vote it has been adopted by the city of Detroit, and its provisions made applicable to an existing court. Its provisions having been made applicable to the recorder's court, the jurisdiction of that court has been expanded, the number of its judges has been increased, and certain administrative features added. But the recorder's court is the court created by Act 55, Laws Mich. 1857, chapter 6 of which deals with the recorder's court. This act is ‘an act to revise the charter of the city of Detroit.’ Act 326, Local Acts 1883, gave a new charter to the city of Detroit, and the recorder's court was continued, and chapter 12 of the act dealt with that court. By Act 408, Local Acts 1893, certain sections of this chapter were amended. The recorder's court originally created by the act of 1857 was continued and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kates v. Reading
...is merely amendatory of local acts governing justices' courts in the city of Detroit; therefore, is itself local. Attorney General v. Lindsay, 221 Mich. 533, 191 N. W. 826; and is invalid without a referendum, Constitution, art. 5, § 30. The Lindsay Case involved Act No. 364, Pub. Acts 1921......
-
Hart v. Wayne County, Docket No. 19285
...be no doubt that 1919 P.A. 369 is a local act. The Supreme Court of Michigan explicitly so held in Attorney General ex rel. Cotter v. Lindsay, 221 Mich. 533, 536, 191 N.W. 826, 827 (1923). That case presented the question whether an amendment to 1919 P.A. 369 had been properly adopted in th......
-
Hart v. Wayne County
...referendum approval by Wayne County. The Court of Appeals held the entire act invalidly adopted. II In Attorney General, ex rel. Cotter v. Lindsay, 221 Mich. 533, 191 N.W. 826 (1923), 1921 P.A. 364 was challenged. It amended 1919 P.A. 369, but contained no referendum approval provision (as ......
-
Grosscup v. Hunt, Motion No. 230.
...by the Act of 1857 was the successor to the mayor's court and the same court with enlarged jurisdiction, and in Attorney General v. Lindsay, 221 Mich. 533, 191 N. W. 826, it was said: ‘The validity of the Act of 1919 is conceded. Its character only is before us. It does not purport to, and ......