Attorney General ex rel. Speed v. Corliss

57 N.W. 410, 98 Mich. 372, 1894 Mich. LEXIS 1177
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided December 12, 1893·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The information in this case was filed to test the title of the respondent to the office of city counselor and head of the legal department of the city of Detroit. The relator interposed a demurrer to the respondent’s plea, and the case now stands at issue upon the joinder in the demurrer.

The merits of this controversy were disppsed of in Speed v. Common Council, 97 Mich. 198. A full statement of all the facts and claims of the parties will there be found. Any further statement here is unnecessary. • The relator was duly appointed, qualified, and inducted into the office. There was no authority for the appointment of the respondent, and he unlawfully intruded himself into the office.

Judgment of ouster must be entered for the relator, with costs.

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

Attorney General ex rel. Speed v. Corliss, 57 N.W. 410, 98 Mich. 372, 1894 Mich. LEXIS 1177 (Mich. 1893).

57 N.W. 410 (Attorney General ex rel. Speed v. Corliss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

North v. Wagner
249 N.W. 494 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1933)
Wentz v. Thomas
1932 OK 636 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)