Silver v. Hamilton Township Board

Michigan Supreme Court

Silver v. Hamilton Township Board

109 N.W. 664, 146 Mich. 393, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 918

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 13, 1906

DocketCalendar No. 31,889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 N.W. 664 (Silver v. Hamilton Township Board) 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

Silver v. Hamilton Township Board, 109 N.W. 664, 146 Mich. 393, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 918 (Mich. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A writ of certiorari brings before us for review the' proceedings of defendant, setting aside the organization of the plaintiff school district. That district was organized June 9, 1906, by the school inspectors of Hamilton township, Clare' county. It was composed of four sections, two of which were taken from district No. 2, and two from district No. 3 of Hamilton township. It appears from the return of defendant, which must be taken as true, that the property of the new district has an assessed valuation of $14,610, and that the effect of its organization will be to reduce the property in school district No. 2 from an assessed valuation of $29,760 to $24,020, and that of district No. 3 from $27,110 to $19,360. The organization was set aside by defendant because—

££ With this territory detached, said districts (2 and 3) will be unable to maintain their schools as they .should be, without imposing a greater burden upon the residents than they are able to bear, and the new district proposed to be formed * * * will be in the same condition, so that two good school districts are sacrificed for the sake of having three poor ones.”

Plaintiff in certiorari asks us to reverse the action of the township board because of various irregularities in its proceedings. If plaintiff had a legal right to have a court review those proceedings, it is possible that its claim of error would be allowed. But it has no such right. At least, it has not that right in this case. As heretofore stated, this case is brought before us by writ of certiorari. That writ, the issuance of which is largely discretionary, will not be permitted to accomplish a palpable injustice (West v. Parkinson, 130 Mich. 401, and authorities there cited); and it is clear for the reason stated by respondent that injustice would be accomplished by setting aside the order under consideration, and sustaining the organization of the plaintiff school district.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

A writ of certiorari brings before us for review the' proceedings of defendant, setting aside the organization of the plaintiff school district. That district was organized June 9, 1906, by the school inspectors of Hamilton township, Clare' county. It was composed of four sections, two of which were taken from district No. 2, and two from district No. 3 of Hamilton township. It appears from the return of defendant, which must be taken as true, that the property of the new district has an assessed valuation of $14,610, and that the effect of its organization will be to reduce the property in school district No. 2 from an assessed valuation of $29,760 to $24,020, and that of district No. 3 from $27,110 to $19,360. The organization was set aside by defendant because—

££ With this territory detached, said districts (2 and 3) will be unable to maintain their schools as they .should be, without imposing a greater burden upon the residents than they are able to bear, and the new district proposed to be formed * * * will be in the same condition, so that two good school districts are sacrificed for the sake of having three poor ones.”

Plaintiff in certiorari asks us to reverse the action of the township board because of various irregularities in its proceedings. If plaintiff had a legal right to have a court review those proceedings, it is possible that its claim of error would be allowed. But it has no such right. At least, it has not that right in this case. As heretofore stated, this case is brought before us by writ of certiorari. That writ, the issuance of which is largely discretionary, will not be permitted to accomplish a palpable injustice (West v. Parkinson, 130 Mich. 401, and authorities there cited); and it is clear for the reason stated by respondent that injustice would be accomplished by setting aside the order under consideration, and sustaining the organization of the plaintiff school district.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 N.W. 664, 146 Mich. 393, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silver-v-hamilton-township-board-mich-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack