Tinsman v. Probate Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Tinsman v. Probate Judge

1 McGrath 607, 82 McGrath 562

DecidedOctober 22, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 607 (Tinsman v. Probate Judge) 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

Tinsman v. Probate Judge, 1 McGrath 607, 82 McGrath 562 (Mich. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

To compel respondent to appoint commissioners to determine the necessity for the condemnation of land for drain purposes.

Denied October 22, 1890.

A township drain had been extended into an adjoining township, by the joint action of the commissioner’s of the two townships. An application was afterwards made to the county drain [610]*610commissioners, under Sec. 1, Chap. 8, of Act No. 233, Laws of 1889, to widen and deepen the drain,, in which it was described as one continuous drain under one name.

Held, that the original drain and the extension were in fact and in law one drain, and were properly included in one proceeding for their widening and deepening; but that in such case the application must be signed by at least one freeholder who was assessed for the construction of the original drain, and by at least one who was assessed for the construction of the extension, which requirement is jurisdictional, and such facts must appear upon the face of the application.

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

To compel respondent to appoint commissioners to determine the necessity for the condemnation of land for drain purposes.

Denied October 22, 1890.

A township drain had been extended into an adjoining township, by the joint action of the commissioner’s of the two townships. An application was afterwards made to the county drain [610]*610commissioners, under Sec. 1, Chap. 8, of Act No. 233, Laws of 1889, to widen and deepen the drain,, in which it was described as one continuous drain under one name.

Held, that the original drain and the extension were in fact and in law one drain, and were properly included in one proceeding for their widening and deepening; but that in such case the application must be signed by at least one freeholder who was assessed for the construction of the original drain, and by at least one who was assessed for the construction of the extension, which requirement is jurisdictional, and such facts must appear upon the face of the application.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 607, 82 McGrath 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinsman-v-probate-judge-mich-1890.