People ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Whipple
49 N.W. 922, 41 Mich. 548
Opinion
A mandamus would be entirely inefficient in reaching the mischief complained of, as no court by such means could keep up a continuous or repeated attendance. Courts are not created to conduct the municipal affairs of cities, and nothing short of any such.general supervision would reach such cases as the present. The remedy, if there is one, is not judicial. .This is not a case where there is some specific right involved, but is a general violation of public duty.
Mandamus denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Whipple, 49 N.W. 922, 41 Mich. 548 (Mich. 1879).
49 N.W. 922 (People ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Whipple) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Matter of Walsh v. Laguardia
199 N.E. 652 (New York Court of Appeals, 1936)
Gowan v. Smith
122 N.W. 286 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1909)
Wilson v. Cleveland
122 N.W. 284 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1909)
People ex rel. Bartlett v. Busse
87 N.E. 840 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1909)
People ex rel. Reckinger v. Dunne
2 Ill. Cir. Ct. 260 (Illinois Circuit Court, 1907)
People ex rel. Cady v. Ihnken
89 N.W. 72 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Johnston v. Mitchell
79 N.W. 812 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)