Attorney General Ex Rel. Cook v. Burhans

7 N.W.2d 370, 304 Mich. 108
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 23, 1942
DocketDocket No. 35, Calendar No. 42,007.
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 7 N.W.2d 370 (Attorney General Ex Rel. Cook v. Burhans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Attorney General Ex Rel. Cook v. Burhans, 7 N.W.2d 370, 304 Mich. 108 (Mich. 1942).

Opinions

Wiest, J.

Tbe attorney general, ex rel. Franklin M. Cook, by information in tbe nature of qilo warranto, seeks ouster of defendant from tbe office of 'regent of tbe University of Michigan on tbe, ground that be has no legal right to tbe office and is a mere usurper therein and also asks tbe court to adjudicate that Franklin M. Cook is tbe regent. Defendant by answer asserts right to bold tbe office by valid election thereto. At tbe biennial State election in April, 1941, two regents of tbe University of *110 Michigan were to be elected and defendant was a candidate. At that time he was a member of the State senate and is still such officer. The board of State canvassers found that .defendant received 410,767 votes, Alfred B. Connable, 409,672, Franklin M. Cook, relator herein, 408,438, and some lesser votes for other candidates, and certified the election of defendant and Connable to the secretary of State. Defendant filed his oath of office as regent and has since acted as such.

Defendant is not a regent of the University of Michigan, for every vote cast for him at such election was void under article 5, § 7, of the Michigan Constitution, which reads:

“No person elected a member of the legislature shall receive any civil appointment within this State or to the senate of the United States from the governor, except notaries public, or from the governor and senate, from the legislature, or any other State authority, during the term for which he is elected. All such appointments and all votes given for any person so elected for any such office or appointment shall be void.”

This provision applies to elections and its mandate must be obeyed. Fyfe v. Kent County Clerk, 149 Mich. 349.

Defendant having usurped the office of regent, in defiance of the mandate of the Constitution barring him under any circumstances from holding such office and rendering all votes cast for him void, it was proper for the attorney geheral to bring this proceeding in the nature of quo warranto to oust him from such office. The provision in the Constitution not only rendered defendant ineligible to the office but- to prevent his intrusion therein rendered every vote cast for him void. Defendant re *111 ceived no votes capable of being recognized by law.

Defendant contends that regents- of the university are not State officers but only officers of the corporate body known as the board of regents of the university.

The university is a State institution, with obligation on the legislature to maintain it. the regents are State officers and, as the board* of regents, constitute the body corporate known as the “Regents of the University of Michigan” and have the general supervision of the University and the direction and control of all expenditures from the university funds. Const. 1908, art. 11, § 5. In People, for use of Regents of the University of Michigan, v. Brooks, 224 Mich. 45, we held the board of regents is a department of the State government created by the Constitution to perform State functions.

Defendant is a usurper in the office of regent and a writ of ouster will issue if necessary to remove him therefrom. This ouster creates a vacancy in the office of regent.

The statute, 1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 3350 (Stat. Ann. § 6.693), provides that:

“Every office shall become vacant, on the happening of either of the following events, before the expiration of the term of such office: * * *
“6. The decision of a competent tribunal, declaring void bis election or appointment.”

The Constitution of 1908, art. 16, § 5, provides:

“The legislature may provide by law the cases in which any office shall be deemed vacant and the manner of filling vacancies, where no provision is made in this Constitution.”

*112 The Constitution also provides in art., 11, § 3:

“When a vacancy shall occur in the office of regent it shall be filled by appointment of the governor. 5 ’

The ouster of Mr. Burhans creates a vacancy to be filled by the governor. No costs.

Boyles, North, Bijtzel, Bushnell, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred with Wiest, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Davis v. Chatman
292 Mich. App. 603 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2011)
In Re Servaas
774 N.W.2d 46 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2009)
Ewing v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan
552 F. Supp. 881 (E.D. Michigan, 1982)
Marquette County v. Board of Control of Northern Michigan University
314 N.W.2d 678 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1981)
Wayne County Republican Committee v. Wayne County Board of Commissioners
247 N.W.2d 571 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1976)
Young v. Detroit City Clerk
207 N.W.2d 126 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1973)
Regents of the University v. Employment Relations Commission
204 N.W.2d 218 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1973)
Layle v. ADJUTANT GEN. OF MICH.
186 N.W.2d 559 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1971)
Regents of University of Michigan v. Labor Mediation Board
171 N.W.2d 477 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1969)
Richardson v. Secretary of State
160 N.W.2d 883 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 N.W.2d 370, 304 Mich. 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-general-ex-rel-cook-v-burhans-mich-1942.