Bauer v. Township Board of Denmark
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus by Fred Bauer to compel the township . board of Denmark to approve certain liquor bonds. The relator, a saloon keeper in the township of Denmark, Tuscola county, filed bonds with the respondent for its approval under the general liquor law of the State. The respondent refused to accept the bonds, for the reason that at the last election the question.of prohibition under the so-called local-option law was submitted to the electors of the county and adopted.
Read the full summary
Mandamus by Fred Bauer to compel the township . board of Denmark to approve certain liquor bonds. The relator, a saloon keeper in the township of Denmark, Tuscola county, filed bonds with the respondent for its approval under the general liquor law of the State. The respondent refused to accept the bonds, for the reason that at the last election the question.of prohibition under the so-called local-option law was submitted to the electors of the county and adopted. The relator has applied for a writ of mandamus to compel the acceptance of his bonds, claiming that prohibition was not legally…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
{after stating the facts). «No question is or can be raised but that all electors of the county were as well informed of the time, place, and manner of the election, and of the issue involved, as they would have been if the first publication had been four days earlier. Probably no issue before the people was ever more fully discussed and more thoroughly understood by the electors. The answer of the respondent shows that there were but few of the electors of the county who did not vote on the *397question, and that those voting in the affirmative constituted a majority of all the qualified voters…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dishon v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- State ex rel. Mullen v. DohertyWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- Seymour v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1893
- Irvin v. GregorySupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- People ex rel. Attorney General v. Village of Highland ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re East Bay Etc. Water Bonds of 1925California Supreme Court · 1925
- Hildreth v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Wightman v. Village of TecumsehMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- East Bay Municipal Utility District v. HadsellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Janesville Water Co. v. City of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.