Attorney General ex rel. Hart v. Cain
Michigan Supreme Court
Quo warranto. Information in the nature of a quo warranto to test the right of respondents to act as policemen of the city of Adrian. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
This is a proceeding by quo warranto. The information is in the usual form, and charges:
1. That, by virtue of the charter, ordinances, rules, and regulations of the city of Adrian, four policemen were authorized for said city, and only four.
2. That the four relators had been duly appointed to hold and perform the duties of such policemen; that each had duly qualified and filed his- "bond, as such officer; *224and that they are still lawfully entitled to hold said positions.
3. That the four respondents had, without any authority of law, intruded themselves into such positions, and continued to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People ex rel. Throop v. LangdonMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- People ex rel. Hudson v. DeMillMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Portman v. State Board of Fish CommissionersMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by5 opinions
- Blynn v. City of PontiacMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Ellis v. LennonMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Singleton v. Eureka CountyNevada Supreme Court · 1894
- Attorney-General Ex Rel. Adams v. McCaugheySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1899
- Burroughs v. EastmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1892