Conely v. Marble

Michigan Supreme Court

Conely v. Marble

1 McGrath 1389

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 18, 1891

DocketNo. 12348

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 1389 (Conely v. Marble) 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

Conely v. Marble, 1 McGrath 1389 (Mich. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

To compel payment of a loss sustained in October, 1889, by killing of sheep by dogs, under How., Secs. 2123 et seq.

Denied November 18, 1891, with costs.

[1393]*1393The common council of the city of Marshall, in April, 1890, directed the recorder to draw an order on the county treasurer in favor of relator for $105, to be paid oút of the dog tax fund. Relator, in April, 1890, filed the order with the treasurer, and as there was not enough in the fund to pay all claims, in full, relator received his pro rata share, or $69.84, together with a certificate showing the total claim and the amount paid thereon. In March, 1891, relator presented this certificate to the county treasurer, and demanded payment of the balance.

Respondent contended that the pro rata payment operated as a full payment, and that the statute authorizing respondent to pay money out of this fund was repealed by Act No. 141, Laws of 1891.

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

To compel payment of a loss sustained in October, 1889, by killing of sheep by dogs, under How., Secs. 2123 et seq.

Denied November 18, 1891, with costs.

[1393]*1393The common council of the city of Marshall, in April, 1890, directed the recorder to draw an order on the county treasurer in favor of relator for $105, to be paid oút of the dog tax fund. Relator, in April, 1890, filed the order with the treasurer, and as there was not enough in the fund to pay all claims, in full, relator received his pro rata share, or $69.84, together with a certificate showing the total claim and the amount paid thereon. In March, 1891, relator presented this certificate to the county treasurer, and demanded payment of the balance.

Respondent contended that the pro rata payment operated as a full payment, and that the statute authorizing respondent to pay money out of this fund was repealed by Act No. 141, Laws of 1891.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 1389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conely-v-marble-mich-1891.