Common Council of Detroit v. Rush
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus. Eelator applied for mandamus to compel respondent to' advertise for bids to construct election booths, under Act No. 263, Laws of 1889. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
The common council of the city of Detroit passed a resolution, requiring the respondent to take the necessary action to carry into effect the election law of 1889 (Act No. 263) at the coming election. He refused, alleging as grounds of such refusal:
1. That the act is unconstitutional and void.
*5352. That the booths and railings will cost a large sum of money, and that no provision has been made by the law for paying the expense.
Petition for mandamus is filed to compel action upon the part of respondent.
The act is entitled—
“ An act to prescribe the manner of conducting, and to prevent fraud and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ogden v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- People ex rel. Twitchell v. BlodgettMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Attorney General ex rel. Conely v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Rogers v. JacobCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889
- Sisters of Charity v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by38 opinions
- Eckerson v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- State ex rel. Lamar v. DillonSupreme Court of Florida · 1893
- In Re Certified QuestionMichigan Supreme Court · 1989
- People v. StoudemireMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
- In re LambrechtMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.