Rose v. Common Council
This text of 95 N.W. 1133 (Rose v. Common Council) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 N.W. 1133, 134 Mich. 102, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-common-council-mich-1903.