Dunning v. Township Drain Commissioner

7 N.W. 239, 44 Mich. 518, 1880 Mich. LEXIS 621
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided November 9, 1880·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Cooley, J.

This is a proceeding instituted to set aside the action of the respondent as township drain commissioner of Essex in Clinton county, and of the jury summoned by him, in laying out a township drain, tailing land for the purpose, •and assessing the costs. All the errors assigned relate to the finding of the jury and the previous proceedings, arid with the exception of those which relate to the giving of notice to the parties concerned and the filing of proof thereof, are somewhat technical. It appears from the return'that plaintiff in certiorari had actual notice and took part in the proceedings before and at the time when the jury was struck, and there is no reason to suppose he has been taken by surprise in any of the proceedings. We are not inclined to reverse such proceedings except for very substantial faults, and the present case, in our opinion, does not call for our intervention.

The writ of certiorari will be quashed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Dunning v. Township Drain Commissioner, 7 N.W. 239, 44 Mich. 518, 1880 Mich. LEXIS 621 (Mich. 1880).

7 N.W. 239 (Dunning v. Township Drain Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Muskegon Township v. Muskegon County Drain Commissioner
257 N.W.2d 224 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1977)
In Re Fitch Drain No. 129
78 N.W.2d 600 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1956)
Harneck v. Walker
199 N.W. 684 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1924)
Pere Marquette Railway Co. v. Ashley
190 N.W. 642 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Doane v. Biggs
172 N.W. 570 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1919)
City of Perry v. Davis & Younger
1907 OK 201 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Gilmore v. Hentig
33 Kan. 156 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1885)