Legal Opinion
Kuhn v. Common Council
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided June 8, 1888PublishedCited by 8 opinions
Mandamus. Eelator applies for mandamus to compel respondent to approve of a liquor-dealer’s bond. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
The relator, Ferdinand Kuhn, a resident of the *535city of Detroit, makes application for mandamus to the common council of the city of Detroit, and claims—
“ That he is engaged in the business of retailing brewed and malt liquors at No. 18 Michigan avenue, in the city of Detroit, and desires to continue such business during the year next ensuing the 1st day of May, 1888.”
On April 12, 1888, relator, by his attorney, presented to the common council of the city of Detroit a bond executed by relator, with two sureties, to enable him to comply with the provisions of Act No. 313, Laws of 1887, which…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- Street v. Varney Electrical Supply Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Avery v. I. Popper & Bro.Texas Supreme Court · 1898
- People v. GansleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Andrews v. National Foundry & Pipe Works, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1897
- Lewis v. City of Grand Rapids, MichiganDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1963
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.