People ex rel. Warner Lake v. Higgins

Michigan Supreme Court

People ex rel. Warner Lake v. Higgins

3 Mich. 233

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1854

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 3 Mich. 233 (People ex rel. Warner Lake v. Higgins) 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

People ex rel. Warner Lake v. Higgins, 3 Mich. 233 (Mich. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Martin, J.

The Court properly excluded evidence explanatory of the: intentions of persons voting for H. I. Higgins, and of the ‘identity of H. I. Higgins and Henry I. Higgins. This question was expressly decided in the People vs. Tisdale, (1 Doug. 59,) and to that decision we adhere. It is true in the People vs. Van Cleve, (Mann. 362.) Mundy, J., in delivering the opinion of the Court, says, “ you may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election of either the person holding, or the person claiming the office.”’ But this remark was not called for in the case, and is obiter diobum.

The Court also properly allowed the ballots of the townships of Genesee, Davidson and Fenton to be given in evidence. Whether there had been a substantial compliance with the statute in respect to the manner in which the votes were kept, it is immaterial to inquire, as we are clearly of opinion-that this statute must be held directory, and that a non-compliance with its provisions alone, cannot defeat the right of the relator.

[Note. — This case was argued and submitted at the May term, 1853, and judgment of ouster, &e., rendered at July term against the defendant.]

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

By the Court,

Martin, J.

The Court properly excluded evidence explanatory of the: intentions of persons voting for H. I. Higgins, and of the ‘identity of H. I. Higgins and Henry I. Higgins. This question was expressly decided in the People vs. Tisdale, (1 Doug. 59,) and to that decision we adhere. It is true in the People vs. Van Cleve, (Mann. 362.) Mundy, J., in delivering the opinion of the Court, says, “ you may go to the ballots, if not beyond them, in search of proof of the due election of either the person holding, or the person claiming the office.”’ But this remark was not called for in the case, and is obiter diobum.

The Court also properly allowed the ballots of the townships of Genesee, Davidson and Fenton to be given in evidence. Whether there had been a substantial compliance with the statute in respect to the manner in which the votes were kept, it is immaterial to inquire, as we are clearly of opinion-that this statute must be held directory, and that a non-compliance with its provisions alone, cannot defeat the right of the relator.

[Note. — This case was argued and submitted at the May term, 1853, and judgment of ouster, &e., rendered at July term against the defendant.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Mich. 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-warner-lake-v-higgins-mich-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack