Attorney General v. Joy
Michigan Supreme Court
Quo warranto proceeding.
1Opinion of the CourtCoolet, C. J.
The information in this case charges th'e respondents with claiming and usurping the corporate right, liberty, privilege and franchise known and called “ The Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company,” claiming to be organized and incorporated under some act or acts of the territory of Michigan, or of the State of Michigan, without being in fact so organized and incorporated, and also the corporate franchises, liberties and privileges of keeping, maintaining and. operating a railroad extending westward from Pontiac to Grand Haven, and that of levying and receiving tolls and fares from…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Raynsford v. PhelpsMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by14 opinions
- City of Indianapolis v. NavinIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Rash v. AllenSuperior Court of Delaware · 1910
- Smith v. Indianapolis Street Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1902
- People ex rel. Attorney General v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909
- People v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1924
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.