County of Clare v. Auditor General
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Ingham. Injunction. The bill alleges that before the organization of the complainant county which was effected by act 345 of 1871, portions of its territory belonged to the counties of Midland and Mecosta, and that since its organization these counties claim that it is indebted to them in large sums which joint resolution No. 35 of 1877 directed the Auditor General to charge against Clare county and to credit to the others in the amount of $8,185.32 to Midland…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ingham. Injunction. The bill alleges that before the organization of the complainant county which was effected by act 345 of 1871, portions of its territory belonged to the counties of Midland and Mecosta, and that since its organization these counties claim that it is indebted to them in large sums which joint resolution No. 35 of 1877 directed the Auditor General to charge against Clare county and to credit to the others in the amount of $8,185.32 to Midland and $5,386.99 to Mecosta. The joint resolution is as follows: JOINT RESOLUTION requiring the Auditor General of the State…
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
If the legislation which is complained of was an adjudication as between the respective counties, it is conceded it could not be supported. But it does not purport by its recitals to be an adjudication, nor do we think it is one in substance. What it undertakes to do is simply this: to direct the Auditor General to restore certain accounts between the State and the new and old counties to their condition as they were before he made certain charges and gave certain credits with a view to an adjustment of the rights of the respective *185.counties according to the law as he then understood, it.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Witter v. WhippleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1899