Randall v. Sweikart

Michigan Supreme Court

Randall v. Sweikart

1 McGrath 1708, 4 Daily L.N. 906

DecidedDecember 21, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 1708 (Randall v. Sweikart) 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

Randall v. Sweikart, 1 McGrath 1708, 4 Daily L.N. 906 (Mich. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

To compel respondents to recognize relator as a member of the Board of Park and Boulevard Commissioners of Detroit. The circuit judge denied the writ. Affirmed Dec. 21, 1897.

Relator was a member of the board, but the term for which [1710]*1710be was appointed expired. He claimed that be was entitled to bold over until bis successor should be appointed. The mayor made an appointment of a successor, which was confirmed by a majority vote of a quorum of the common council. Relator insisted that the" confirmation required a majority vote of the. members elect of the council, under Section 114 of the Charter,, which provides that all appointments to office by the council shall be made by- a majority vote of the aldermen elect. Held, that said Section 114 has no application to an appointment by the mayor, “with the consent of the common council” under the Act relating to the respondent board.

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

To compel respondents to recognize relator as a member of the Board of Park and Boulevard Commissioners of Detroit. The circuit judge denied the writ. Affirmed Dec. 21, 1897.

Relator was a member of the board, but the term for which [1710]*1710be was appointed expired. He claimed that be was entitled to bold over until bis successor should be appointed. The mayor made an appointment of a successor, which was confirmed by a majority vote of a quorum of the common council. Relator insisted that the" confirmation required a majority vote of the. members elect of the council, under Section 114 of the Charter,, which provides that all appointments to office by the council shall be made by- a majority vote of the aldermen elect. Held, that said Section 114 has no application to an appointment by the mayor, “with the consent of the common council” under the Act relating to the respondent board.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 1708, 4 Daily L.N. 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-sweikart-mich-1897.