Huse v. East China Township Board
Michigan Supreme Court
1DissentReid, C. J.
I do not concur in the opinion of my Brother Mr. Justice Bushnell.
The defendant board of health is not concerned with the repair and upkeep of the public highways of the township and is without warrant of law or rule of equity in using for such repair and upkeep, property held in trust by the board of health for cemetery purposes. The care and upkeep of township highways is for the township board and not for the township board of health.
Justice Bushnell relies on the case of Richmond Hills Memorial Park Ass’n v. Richardson, 275 Mich 403, in which case suit was brought by a cemetery…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Silliman v. GanoTexas Supreme Court · 1897
- Tracy v. BittleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Glasgow v. NichollsWashington Supreme Court · 1923
- Clapp v. VatcherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- Prondzinski v. GarbuttNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.