Legal Opinion
Ellis v. Lennon
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 3, 1891PublishedCited by 24 opinions
Information in tbe nature of a quo warranto to test the title of respondent to the office of chief of police of West Bay City. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
Respondent' was elected alderman of West Bay City for the term of two years from and after April 10, 1890. He entered upon the duties of said *469office, and served till April 13, 1891, when he resigned, and was by the common council appointed chief of police of that city, which office he now holds. The Attorney General has filed an information in the nature of a quo warranto, - claiming that respondent's appointment was illegal.
Section 15, tit. 3, Charter, provides that—
“ The common council shall also appoint, on the second Monday in April, A. D. 1891, * * * one chief of police, and such number…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Attorney General ex rel. Hart v. CainMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by24 opinions
- Wood v. Town of WhitehallNew York Supreme Court · 1923
- Richardson v. Secretary of StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1968
- Chenoweth v. ChambersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- State Ex Rel. Lyons v. GuyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1961
- Fyfe v. Kent County ClerkMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.