People ex rel. East Saginaw Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Board of State Auditors
Michigan Supreme Court
Motion for a mandamus. The relators showed by their application, that after the act entitled “An Act to encourage the manufacture of salt in the State of Michigan,” approved February 15, 1859 (Laws of 1859, p. 551) was passed and took effect, and before the ninth day of March, 1861, they had manufactured at their salt works upon Saginaw River, 6348 barrels of salt, of five bushels each, upon which they claimed the bounty of ten cents per barrel offered by said act: that they…
Read the full summary
Motion for a mandamus. The relators showed by their application, that after the act entitled “An Act to encourage the manufacture of salt in the State of Michigan,” approved February 15, 1859 (Laws of 1859, p. 551) was passed and took effect, and before the ninth day of March, 1861, they had manufactured at their salt works upon Saginaw River, 6348 barrels of salt, of five bushels each, upon which they claimed the bounty of ten cents per barrel offered by said act: that they presented to the Board of State Auditors an account thereof, but that said Board refused to allow the bounty offered by…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
held that the relators had acquired a vested right to the bounty offered by the act of 1859, upon all the salt manufactured before the act of 1861 took effect, and that they could not be deprived thereof by the last mentioned act.
2Cited by10 opinions
- Taylor v. YpsilantiSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Ingram v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Michigan Sugar Co. v. Auditor GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Hallenbeck v. HahnNebraska Supreme Court · 1873
- Attorney General v. ConnollyMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.