Portman v. State Board of Fish Commissioners

15 N.W. 106, 50 Mich. 258
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided February 27, 1883·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Marston, J.

We are of opinion that the Superintendent of Fisheries is not an officer within'the meaning of the Constitution and laws of this State ; that he is an employee of the Board, subject to their orders and directions, and that they have power to terminate at any time the contract relations existing between the Board and Superintendent. This is absolutely necessary to the efficiency of the work which the Board was created to perform, and any other view would render the Board to a great extent subservient to the will of the Superintendent. If there has been a breach of contract relator may have a claim for damages, but mandamus would not be the proper remedy.

It follows that the relief prayed for must be denied.

Graves, C. J. and Cooley, J. concurred.

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

Portman v. State Board of Fish Commissioners, 15 N.W. 106, 50 Mich. 258 (Mich. 1883).

15 N.W. 106 (Portman v. State Board of Fish Commissioners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Attorney-General Ex Rel. Adams v. McCaughey
43 A. 646 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1899)
Board of Education v. State ex rel. Reed
76 N.W. 351 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1898)
Fuller v. Ellis
57 N.W. 33 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)
Attorney General ex rel. Hart v. Cain
47 N.W. 484 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1890)