Double v. McQueen
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus. Relator applied for mandamus to compel the board of supervisors of Montmorency county to reconvene, and canvass the votes cast ujoon the question of the removal of the county-seat, and determine the result; and an order was granted on the prayer of the respondents, requiring the inspectors of election of certain townships, who are charged in the answer with fraudulently omitting to make true and correct returns, to show cause why they should not be compelled to…
Read the full summary
Mandamus. Relator applied for mandamus to compel the board of supervisors of Montmorency county to reconvene, and canvass the votes cast ujoon the question of the removal of the county-seat, and determine the result; and an order was granted on the prayer of the respondents, requiring the inspectors of election of certain townships, who are charged in the answer with fraudulently omitting to make true and correct returns, to show cause why they should not be compelled to make such returns. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
The county of Montmorency is composed of the six townships of Albert, Briley, Hillman, Montmorency, Rust, and Wheatfiéld. James H. McQueen is the supervisor of the townshijD of Rust, Andrew Dickie of the township of Montmorency, and William Murphy of the township of Hillman. February 24, 1893, a special meeting of the board of supervisors of the county was called for the purpose of considering the question of the removal of the county-seat from Hillman to another place nearer the center of the county. A resolution was passed by the board, directing that the question be submitted to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Attorney General ex rel. Foster v. Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by4 opinions
- George v. BeatyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Thomas v. AbbottMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Ferguson v. HugginsTexas Supreme Court · 1932
- Peck v. Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1894