Legal Opinion
Feek v. Township Board of Bloomingdale
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 10, 1890PublishedCited by 30 opinions
Mandamus. Relator applied for mandamus to compel the approval of a liquor bond under Act No. 313, Laws of 1887. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Champlin, O. J.
The relator asks for a mandamus to *395compel the township board to approve a liquor bond presented by the relator under Act No. 313, Laws of 1887. The township board refused to entertain jurisdiction for reasons stated in their answer to the petition as follows:
“The said respondents further show unto the Court that the said township board refused to approve said bond of the said John W. Feck, said bond being presented to said board as a liquor bond for said Feek, who was desirous of and intended to engage in the business of selling and keeping for sale spirituous and intoxicating…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People v. HanrahanMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Grandy v. CaseySupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- State v. Judge of the Circuit CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1888
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. O'NeillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
- Ex parte SwannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Mackin v. Detroit-Timkin Axle Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
- King v. Concordia Fire-InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- People v. ShulerMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. County of OaklandMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
- In re O'BrienMontana Supreme Court · 1904
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.