People ex rel. Attorney General v. Lawton
This text of 30 Mich. 386 (People ex rel. Attorney General v. Lawton) 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.
Opinion
The appointment of an inspector under the law in' question is preliminary to possible criminal proceedings, and has no practical office, if indeed any at all, except to that end. An examination of the law shows very clearly that it makes no provision whatever under which a jury can be summoned and trial had in the probate court, and is consequently in its main purpose wholly ineffectual.
Under these circumstances, as the proposed appointment, if made, would be futile without further legislation, and as legislation, if any should be had on the subject, would be likely to be so shaped as to avoid important constitutional questions which arise under the present law, any discussion of such questions is not called for at this time; and in denying the application for a mandamus we intimate no opinion whatever on either of them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
30 Mich. 386, 1874 Mich. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-attorney-general-v-lawton-mich-1874.