Rose v. Common Council

95 N.W. 1133, 134 Mich. 102, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 606
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided July 8, 1903·No. Calendar No. 19,988·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question involved in this suit is respondent’s authority to pass an ordinance forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors in a certain section of the city of Ann Arbor. Since this suit was brought to this court, the legislature, by Act No. 543, Local Acts 1903, has prohibited such sales in that section. There is, therefore, no occasion to determine what relator’s rights were under the former law. Preferred Tontine Mercantile Co. v. Secretary of State, 133 Mich. 395 (95 N. W. 417).

The case will be remanded, to enable respondent to procure in the lower court a vacation of the order complained of. No costs will be allowed.

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

Rose v. Common Council, 95 N.W. 1133, 134 Mich. 102, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 606 (Mich. 1903).

95 N.W. 1133 (Rose v. Common Council) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cook v. Board of Election Commissioners
138 N.W. 1 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Fuchs v. Common Council
132 N.W. 96 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)