Legal Opinion

Attorney General ex rel. City of Monroe v. Toledo & Monroe Railway

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 17, 1908No. Docket No. 31PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Quo warranto proceedings by John E. Bird, attorney general, on the relation of the city of Monroe, against the Toledo & Monroe Railway, the Monroe Traction Company, and the Detroit, Monroe & Toledo Short Line Railway for the forfeiture of certain franchises. There was judgment dismissing the petition, and petitioner brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

This is a quo warranto proceeding. Some information will be afforded in relation to the questions involved by a reference to the opinions in Ilgenfritz v. Railway, 136 Mich. 634, and City of Monroe v. Railway, 143 Mich. 315. By the writ of quo warranto the relator seeks 1o quash the charter of the Monroe Traction Company and to oust the other two defendants from taking, holding, or operating the street-railway franchise *474granted by the city of Monroe to the Monroe Traction Company. The claim of the relator is summarized in the brief of counsel. It is claimed defendants have violated State law…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Maybury v. Mutual Gas-Light Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1878
  2. People ex rel. Kunze v. Fort Wayne & Elmwood Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
  3. City of Monroe v. Detroit, Monroe & Toledo Short Line RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Attorney General v. Detroit Suburban Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Ilgenfritz v. Toledo & Monroe RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kosman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
  2. City of Monroe v. Detroit, Monroe & Toledo Short Line RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
  3. City of Mason v. Lansing & Jackson Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Kosman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API