People ex rel. Miller v. Board of Auditors
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus to compel the Board to audit and allow a certain sum which relator claims to be due him as part of his salary as assistant prosecuting attorney. Relator showed that he was appointed February 25, 1878, under act 28 of 1877; that the salary of his predecessor had been fixed by resolution of the board of auditors at $1,500 a year, but that he had been paid at the rate of only $1,320, and that the board had rejected his claim for the difference.
Read the full summary
Mandamus to compel the Board to audit and allow a certain sum which relator claims to be due him as part of his salary as assistant prosecuting attorney. Relator showed that he was appointed February 25, 1878, under act 28 of 1877; that the salary of his predecessor had been fixed by resolution of the board of auditors at $1,500 a year, but that he had been paid at the rate of only $1,320, and that the board had rejected his claim for the difference. The board answered that before relator’s appointment they had notified him verbally that his salary would be fixed at the minimum amount allowed…
1Per curiam
The board of auditors cannot change action that they have once taken in fixing a salary except by further action spread upon their records. They cannot change it by parol. The fact that relator received less than he was entitled to does not amount to a waiver of his rights. Other legal questions in the case need not be passed on.
Mandamus granted.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Kaminski v. Wayne County Board of AuditorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Brown v. Department of Military AffairsMichigan Supreme Court · 1971
- Hicks v. Stillwater CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1929
- Ruell v. City of AlpenaMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Davey v. City of Big RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1891