Amperse v. Common Council
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus. Relator applied for an order to show cause why a mandamus should not issue requiring the common council of the city of Kalamazoo to act upon the approval of her bond, as a liquor dealer in said «city, which was granted, to which respondent made answer. The facts are stated in the opinions.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
The relator, Catharine Amperse, who is a married woman, filed her petition in this Court, praying for a writ of mandamus against respondent to compel said council to act upon the approval of a bond presented to them under the liquor law, and to approve the same, if sufficient in form and penalty and responsibility of sureties. An order to show cause why such writ should not issue was granted by this Court June 9, 1885, and on the twenty-second of September, 1885, the” respondents answered. From the petition and answer it appears that, on the twentieth day of May, 1885, the petitioner…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State ex rel. Adamson v. Lafayette County CourtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- People ex rel. Mixer v. Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Tillman v. ShackletonMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Ex parte CandeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1872
- Rankin v. WestMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Jewett v. WilliamsIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
- McLeod v. ScottOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Scott v. Arcada Township BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
- State ex rel. Buchanan v. KelloggWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Perry v. City Council of Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1891
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.