Legal Opinion

Van Fleet v. Oltman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1928No. Calendar 32,997PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.

The defendants are the members of the finance committee of the county of Kent, provided for in Act No. 301, Pub. Acts 1923. Its duty in respect to claims is thus stated:

It shall “audit all claims which are chargeable against the county, and no warrants shall be drawn for such claim, nor the same be paid until it has been audited by the committee, as herein provided.”

This provision is quite similar to that providing for the audit of claims by boards of supervisors and county auditors. 1 Comp. Laws 1915, § 2299 el seq.

Act No. 301, Pub. Acts 1925, amended chapter 3, § 22.of Act No. 164, Pub.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Attorney General ex rel. Zacharias v. Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Child Welfare Society v. Kennedy School DistrictMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Collins v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1917

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Governor v. State TreasurerMichigan Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Sturgis v. County of AlleganMichigan Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Governor v. State TreasurerMichigan Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Milliken v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Milliken v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API