The court granted the writ, directing respondent to compute the amount in accordance with their opinion. (Reported in 76 N. W. 633.) Lower Maynard, Attorney General, ex rel. Moore et al. v. American Express Co.-MandaWrit granted in Wayne circuit court, and respondent brings error. court affirmed by supreme court. mus. The above is a case wherein the Attorney General, on the relation of the merchants of Detroit, filed a petition in the Wayne circuit court for a mandamus to compel the respondent, its officers, agents and servants to receive, accept, transmit and deliver any and all goods, wares and merchandise duly offered and tendered to it in boxes, etc., for transportation, when the fees and charges for such goods shall be paid or tendered, and to issue to the shippers or consignors throughout this State a bill of lading or evidence of credit of receipt of each shipment, with the "war revenue" stamp duly attached thereto and canceled by it, as provided by act of Congress June 13, 1898, being "An act to provide ways and means to meet war expenditures, and for other purposes," without requiring such consignors or shippers to pay the said stamp, or value thereof. The Wayne circuit court issued an order to show cause, and a return having been made to such order by respondent, the court granted writ as prayed. The case was brought to the supreme court by certiorari, which court sustain the lower court. Case was appealed to supreme court of the United States in April, 1899, where it is now pending. (77 N. W. 317.) Lockton, Prosecuting Attorney, v. Edwards, Medical Superintendent.—Mandamus. Writ denied. This is a case wherein relator brought mandamus proceedings against respondent, William M. Edwards, medical superintendent of the Michigan Asylum for the Insane at Kalamazoo, to compel him to receive an insane person into the asylum as a State charge. The opinion of the supreme court being brief, it is given in full, as follows: "PER CURIAM. The sole question in this case is this: Is an indigent patient, who has been confined in the asylum for the insane at Kalamazoo, who has been removed therefrom as an unrecovered patient, and remained away from the asylum more than one year, entitled to be returned to the asylum as a State charge? The statute is as follows: 'An unrecovered patient, removed temporarily on trial, if returned to the asylum within one year from the date of removal, shall not forfeit his right to State support.' 3 How. Ann. St., Sec. 1930c8. The patient in this case had been away from the asylum for two years and four months. The usual proceedings were then taken before the probate court to have her adjudged insane, and sent to the asylum. The probate court directed that she be received as a State charge. The clear implication is that a return within one year is necessary to entitle the patient to be received at the expense of the State. If returned after the expiration of a year, an insane person becomes a charge upon the county. The respondent was right in refusing to admit the patient. The writ is denied." Maynard, Attorney General, v. Wesselius, Commissioner of Railroads.-Mandamus. Writ denied. Detroit, Grand Rapids & Western R. R. Co. v. Wesselius, Commissioner of Railroads. Mandamus. Denied. Relator made application for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Commissioner of Railroads, to change the assessment made against the relator for the present year. The supreme court denied the petition of relator in said application. Chicago & W. M. Ry. Co. v. Wesselius, Commissioner of Railroads.-Mandamus. Denied. The above is a proceeding which presents the general question as to whether the sum received by a railroad company for switching cars should be treated by the Commissioner of Railroads as a part of its gross earnings. The case is ruled by the Detroit, G. R. & W. R. Co. v. Commissioner of Railroads in 77 N. W. 631. The Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., Plaintiff in error, v. Henry C. Smith. (Supreme Court of the United States.-April 17, 1899.) In error to the supreme court of the State of Michigan. This is a case of considerable magnitude. On April 19, 1893, and again on October 17 of the same year, the defendant in error demanded of the ticket agent of the plaintiff railway company, in the city of Adrian, Michigan, a thousand-mile ticket, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9, Act No. 90, Laws of 1891, in the names of himself and his wife, which demand was refused. Said defendant then applied to the circuit court for a mandamus to compel the said railway company to issue such ticket upon the payment of $20, and after a hearing the motion was granted. The supreme court of Michigan, upon certiorari, affirmed that order, and held that the statute applied only to the railway lines of the plaintiff in error operated within said State. The railway company set up the defense that, under the charter from the State to one of the predecessors of the company to whose rights it had succeeded, it had the right to charge three cents per mile for the transportation of all passengers, and that such charter constituted a contract between the State and the company, which the former had no right to impair by any legislative action, and that the statute compelling the company to sell thousand-mile tickets at the rate of two cents a mile was an impairment of the contract, and was therefore void as in violation of the constitution of the United States. It further alleged that the act was in violation of the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States, in that it deprived the company of its property and liberty of contract without due process of law, and also deprived it of the equal protection of the laws. It was also alleged that the act was in violation of the constitution of Michigan on several grounds. The supreme court of Michigan decided that there was no contract in relation to the rates which the company might charge for the transportation of passengers, and that the statute violated no provision cither of the federal or state constitution, but was a valid enactment of the legislature, and therefore the court affirmed the order for mandamus-the ticket to be good upon, and limited to, the railway lines of the defendant's line of road within the State of Michigan. The company sued out a writ of error from the Michigan supreme court. In delivering the opinion of the supreme court of the United States, Justice Peckham says: "The only subject of inquiry for us in this case is whether the act of the legislature of the State of Michigan violates any provision of the Federal constitution. It is not within our province to review the decision of the supreme court upon the question whether the act violates the constitution of the State. "The two questions of a Federal nature that are raised in the record are: (1) whether the act violates the constitution of the United States by impairing the obligation of any contract between the State and the railroad company; and, (2) if not, does it nevertheless violate the fourteenth amendment of the constitution by depriving the company of its property or liberty without due process of law or by depriving it of the equal protection of the law." Held, that "this particular piece of legislation does not partake of the character of legislation fairly or reasonably necessary to attain any of those objects, and that it does violate the Federal constitution as above stated"-thus reversing the judgment of the supreme court of Michigan, and remanding the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the United States supreme court. Attorney General v. Roards of Supervisors of Kalkaska and Antrim Counties. -Mandamus. Writ denied. In this case the Attorney General as relator seeks to compel the boards of supervisors of Kalkaska and Antrim counties to rebuild a bridge at a particular site, over a navigable stream between them, authorized by the legislature. The court held that where the power to determine the site is expressly conferred upon the two boards, the matter is within the discretion of such boards, and the court has no power to fix a site for the bridge. Writ denied. (Reported in 79 N. W. R. 567.) Jas. H. Pond et al. v. Horace M. Oren.-Mandamus. Writ denied. In this proceeding the relators have asked for mandamus to compel the Attorney General to file an information in the nature of quo warranto to try the right of A. L. McLeod to hold the office of county treasurer of Wayne county. Howell's Ann. St., 8662, provides that an information in the nature of quo warranto may be filed in the circuit court, except against a State officer by the prosecuting attorney or any citizen of the county without leave of court. Held, that the legislature clearly intended cases in which the title of a county officer came in question to be determined by the circuit court, and the application for the information would have to be made to the prosecuting attorney and not the Attorney general. Writ denied. (Reported in 78 N. W. R. 541.) Wisconsin, M. & N. Ry. Co. v. Wesselius et al.-Mandamus. Writ issued. Application for mandamus to compel the respondents to pass upon a railroad map, as required by How. An. St., 3321. Said statute requires the "railroad crossing board" to approve or disapprove the map within thirty days of its presentation. Two of the board had gone out of office, the thirty days had expired, and the map had not been passed upon. Held, that the order would run against the present members of the board, and the writ was issued to compel the board to proceed to approve or disapprove the map. Mandamus granted. (Reported in 78 N. W. R. 344.) Dix, Auditor General v. Board of Supervisors of Gogebic County et al.-Mandamus. Writ granted. The above entitled cause is one wherein proceedings were brought in the supreme court by the relator, the Auditor General, to compel respondents, the board of supervisors of Gogebic county, and John Evans, county treasurer, to spread certain taxes upon the rolls of said county to recover $54,000 in back taxes due the State. A portion of such tax being for the expense incurred in calling out the State troops to quell the riots in Ironwood during the strike of iron miners in 1894; the balance being for other taxes which accumulated since that time. On March 31, 1899, the supreme court made an order referring issue to the Ingham county circuit for trial. Held, that judgment may be entered in said cause in favor of the relator and against the board of supervisors of Gogebic county for the sum of $33,719.92, and that the petition be dismissed as to John Evans, county treasurer. The same to be without costs to either party, and that the proceedings in execution of such judgment be stayed until October 1, 1899, said judgment not drawing interest. Further held, that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue to the board of supervisors aforesaid, commanding them to forthwith assess upon the taxable property of said county said sum of $33,719.92, for the purposes heretofore indicated. This being the finding of the circuit court, and upon report to the supreme court the same day the lower court was confirmed. Hazen S. Pingree, Governor, v. Dix, Auditor General; and Tecumseh Telephone Company v. Roscoe D. Dix, Auditor General.-Mandamus. Writ granted. The statute of 1881, taxing telephone and telegraph companies is void. The above entitled cases involve the legality of the application of the specific tax levied against telephone and telegraph companies under the constitution. The taxes have been heretofore paid by the Auditor General, when received, into the primary school fund and apportioned to the different school districts on a per capita basis, as required by law. The demand was made by relator in each case upon the Auditor General by writ of mandamus to compel him to transfer these taxes from the primary school fund to the general tax fund, on the ground that they were not specific taxes, and belonged to the latter fund. The matter thus having come up on order to show cause why mandamus should not issue to compel such transfer in the case of the Governor, and to show cause why mandamus should not issue in the Tecumseh Telephone Company case to compel the respondent to cancel the tax of relator on the ground that it is invalid, being a property tax in the assessing of which the constitutional requirement of uniformity has been violated. Both cases were most carefully prepared and presented to the supreme court. The provisions of act 168 of the public acts of 1881, the same being the law in dispute, are, in substance, that the Auditor General, State Treasurer and Commissioner of the State Land Office shall assess telegraph and telephone lines at their true cash value, and levy a tax upon said assessment at a rate which shall equal the average rate of taxes, general, municipal and local, levied throughout the State during the previous year, to be ascertained from the records and files of the Auditor General's office, which tax shall be in lieu of all other taxes. The tax having been paid the Auditor General treated it as a specific tax, and credited the amounts collected to the educational fund under the provisions of Sec. 1, Art. 14 of the constitution. The supreme court held that the applications be granted-that of the telephone company as prayed, that of the Governor to the extent of requiring the amount collected under the law and now in the hands of the treasurer, to be credited to the general fund. Further held, that costs will not follow. (78 N. W. 1025.) Mandamus and other proceedings pending. George A. Cockburn v. Dix, Auditor General. The Wabash Ry. Co. v. Osborn, Commissioner of R. R. SCHEDULE D. This schedule contains a list of quo warranto proceedings, commenced either by the Attorney General upon his own relation, or by him upon the relation of some other person. HORACE M. OREN, ATTY. GEN., EX REL. J. JAY CALKINS v. EDWARD CROWE. Quo warranto. The information in this case was filed to test the title to the office of police justice of the city of Jackson. At the time of the hearing it was discovered that the recorder at the fall election of 1898 destroyed all the city ballots, so that there remained no means of ascertaining as to the irregularities claimed in the information. The proceedings were practically abandoned. QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS PENDING. Maynard, Atty. General, ex rel. Dusenbury et al. v. Dexter M. Ferry. Attorney General ex rel. James Pendill v. Lake Superior & Ishpeming Ry. Co. Oren, Attorney General, ex rel. McCall v. Julius B. Kirby. Oren, Atty. Gen., on his own relation, v. Merrie H. Abbott. Oren, Atty. Gen., ex rel. George H. Barbour et al. v. Hazen S. Pingree et al. |