Sweet v. Smith

Michigan Supreme Court

Sweet v. Smith

117 N.W. 59, 153 Mich. 674, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 1082

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 13, 1908

DocketCalendar No. 22,947½

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 117 N.W. 59 (Sweet v. Smith) 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

Sweet v. Smith, 117 N.W. 59, 153 Mich. 674, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 1082 (Mich. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are asked to review an order of the circuit court for the county of Wayne denying a mandamus, prayed for by relator and others, compelling the respondent “to execute and enforce all the laws pertaining to the preservation of the Sabbath, or the first day of the week, at the baseball park of the Detroit Club.” The purpose of the proceeding was to prohibit Sunday baseball playing in the city of Detroit. It does not appear that the grievance of the petitioners is any other than that sustained by other citizens of the city of Detroit. Neither does it appear that the attorney general of the State has refused to take action in the matter. Under these circumstances, petitioners have no right to relief. The griev[675]*675anee complained of is purely a public grievance, and redress should have been sought by the people’s public agents, and not by private intervention. See People, ex rel. Russell, v. Inspector and Agent of State Prison, 4 Mich. 187; Miller v. Grandy, 13 Mich. 540; People, ex rel. Delbridge, v. Green, 29 Mich. 121; People, ex rel. McBride, v. Board of Sup’rs of Kent Co., 38 Mich. 422; Steffes v. Moran, 68 Mich. 291; Smith v. City of Saginaw, 81 Mich. 123.

The decision of the circuit court was clearly correct, and we decline to review it in this court.

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

Per Curiam.

We are asked to review an order of the circuit court for the county of Wayne denying a mandamus, prayed for by relator and others, compelling the respondent “to execute and enforce all the laws pertaining to the preservation of the Sabbath, or the first day of the week, at the baseball park of the Detroit Club.” The purpose of the proceeding was to prohibit Sunday baseball playing in the city of Detroit. It does not appear that the grievance of the petitioners is any other than that sustained by other citizens of the city of Detroit. Neither does it appear that the attorney general of the State has refused to take action in the matter. Under these circumstances, petitioners have no right to relief. The griev[675]*675anee complained of is purely a public grievance, and redress should have been sought by the people’s public agents, and not by private intervention. See People, ex rel. Russell, v. Inspector and Agent of State Prison, 4 Mich. 187; Miller v. Grandy, 13 Mich. 540; People, ex rel. Delbridge, v. Green, 29 Mich. 121; People, ex rel. McBride, v. Board of Sup’rs of Kent Co., 38 Mich. 422; Steffes v. Moran, 68 Mich. 291; Smith v. City of Saginaw, 81 Mich. 123.

The decision of the circuit court was clearly correct, and we decline to review it in this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 N.W. 59, 153 Mich. 674, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 1082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweet-v-smith-mich-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack