Legal Opinion

Palmer v. President of Hartford

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1888PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Mandamus. Relator applied for a mandamus to compel respondents to approve a liquor-dealer’s bond. Tbe facts are stated in the opinion. .

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

This is a petition for mandamus to compel the president and trustees of - the village of Hartford to approve a liquor bond.

The claim made by the petition is that relator is a resident of Hartford, Van Burén county, and that on June 25, 1888, he made and executed a liquor bond, as provided by the statute, with Clark Samson and Ira W. Allen as sureties thereon; that said sureties- both justified under oath as - required by law in a sum equal to the penalty of said bond, which justification was duly indorsed on said bond, in all respects in accordance with *97the provision of the statute in such…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Post v. Township Board of SpartaMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  2. McHenry v. Township BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bailey v. Van Buren Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Divine v. Board of TrusteesMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Farr v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1904

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

Powered by the Exa API