TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Burns

The People v. Daniel Burns

People v. Burns, 5 Mich. 114 (1858)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 21, 1858
Judges
Manning, Other
Citations
5 Mich. 1141858 Mich. LEXIS 19
Cited by 34
Headnotes
In construing a statute, effect must bo given to every part of it. One part must not be so construed as to render another part nugatory; and tho samo rule applies to words in construing sentences. By the second section of Act 3STo. 171 of 1857, it was not the intention of the Legislature, as gathered from tho terms used and tho other provisions of the Act, to submit tho question of the organization of Bay county to tho electors of Saginaw, Midland, and Arenac counties, but to the electors only of that portion of said counties embraced within the county proposed to be organized. And tho electors of the proposed county, having voted in favor of such organization, and the subsequent steps contemplated by tho Act having been taken, Bay county is properly organized.
Summary
Case reserved from the Sagmaw Circuit. An indictment against defendant was found in the Court below, for perjury alleged to have been committed June 29th, 1857, at the townshij) of Hampton. To this indictment the defendant filed a plea m abatement, that “the said supposed offense, if any such was committed, was committed within the jurisdiction of Bay county, and not within the jurisdiction of this Court” — upon wMch plea issue was taken. This issue came on to be tried in the Court below on the 6th day of January, 1858, when the following facts appeared, and were agreed upon as true: The offense is charged to have been committed in the ’township of Hampton, and not elsewhere. That township is in the county of Saginaw, as it existed prior to the passage of Act No. 171, Session Laws of 1857, p. 438, <fcc. The time alleged.in the indictment, June 29th, 1857, and no other, is the time said offense was committed, if at all. At that time the township of Hampton was in Bay county, if any such county exists; said township being within the territory named in said Act to be formed into a county by that name. In pursuance of said Act No. 171, of 1857, a vote was taken at the spring election of that year. The vote within the whole territory named in section two of said Act, viz., Saginaw, Midland, and Arenac counties, as formerly organized, resulted in a majority of votes, “Bay county, No.” The result of the vote within the territory described in said Act in the first section, to -be known and called Bay county, was as follows: “Bay county, Tes,” two hundred and ninety-four votes; “Bay county, No,” fourteen votes. Said Bay county includes Arenac, and a portion of each Saginaw and Midland counties, but not so as to reduce either of them to less than sixteen townships, as surveyed by the United States. . An election was held for county officers, at the time and in the manner prescribed in said Act, and county officers were duly elected for said Bay county, and qualified as prescribed in said Act; which election was held for and within the territory described in said first section of said Act, and under the provisions of said Act regarding said election; the canvass of votes and qualification of officers elected duly complied with; and said officers entered upon their duties as therein prescribed, on the second Monday next following the election. A place for holding the Circuit Court for said Bay county, and for county offices, was designated, as therein, and by law required, and the same duly -certified and filed in the office of the clerk. •And upon the facts so appearing and agreed upon, the question was reserved for the opinion of this Court, Whether Bay county was, in fact, properly organized?

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Manning

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Manning J.:.

The only question in this case is one of- construction to be given to the statute — S. L. of 1857, No. 171. Was it the intention of the Legislature to submit the question of the organization of the new county to the electors of the territory of which it was to be formed, or to all of the electors of the several counties from which the territory was to be taken to form it ? The Act is inartifieially drawn, and obscure in some of its parts; and it is out of this obscurity the question before us arises.

By the. first section, it is enacted “ That the following described territory shall be organized into a county, and shall be known and called Bay county,” — describing the territory to be included in the county.

The second section is in these words: “This Act shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of Saginaw county, Midland and Arenac counties, at the township meetings to be holden in said county, on the first' Monday in April next. At said election, a ballot box shall be kept by the several boards of inspectors thereof, for receiving the votes cast for or against the approval of this Act, and on the ballots shall be written or printed “Bay county, Yes,” or “Bay county, No”; and the said votes shall be examined, canvassed, and returned in like manner with the votes cast for State officers, as near as may be. And in case a majority of the said votes upon the approval of this Act shall be in favor of such approval, then this Act shall take effect upon the twentieth day of April, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-seven; but if a majority of said votes shall be against such approval, then this Act shall not take effect, but shall be void.”

*117 The principal difficulty in the ease is in the construction to be given to the first sentence of this section — “This Act "shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of Saginaw county, Midland and Arenac counties, at the township 'meetings to be holden in said county, on the first Monday in April next.” If the language was in said counties, instead of county, it would be clear the intention of the Legislature was, so far as it could *be gathered from this section alone, to submit the question of organization to the electors of the three counties of Saginaw, Midland, and Arenac. But we are of opinion the Legislature intended by the words “in said county” only the territory included in the first section, and therein called Bay county.

No rule is better settled than, in construing a statute, effect must be given to every part of it. One part must not be so construed as to render another part nugatory,-or of no effect. The same rule applies to words, in construing a sentence. Now, if we strike out the words “in said county,” it will appear the question of organization was to be submitted to the electors of Saginaw, Midland, and Arenac ■counties; — “This Act shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of 'Saginaw county, Midland, and Arenac counties, ■at the township meetings to be holden on the first Monday in April next.” But in doing this, we violate the rule above stated for the construction of statutes, and take it for granted the Legislature used the wordp “in said county” without ■attaching any. meaning to them; — nay, more, to render ■obscure a sentence clear and unambiguous without them. We can not do the one, or suppose the other; and to give effect to these words, must construe the sentence in which ■they are found as meaning to leave it with the electors of Bay county alone to decide whether they would be organized into a county or not.

A transposition of the words “in said county,” to another part of the sentence will make its meaning appear more manifest. If we insert them after the word “counties,” the *118 sentence will read as follows: This Act shall he submitted to a vote of the electors of Saginaw county, Midland and Arenac counties, in said county, at the township meetings to be holden on the first Monday in April next.

We can see a reason for submitting the question of organizing a county to its electors, in the additional expenses, such organization would impose on them. And where a new county is to be formed of the territory of organized counties, the interest the electors in such counties .have in the question, may be a sufficient cause for submitting its decision to them. It is to be presumed the Legislature had one or other of these objects in view in the Act before us, and not both. If the object was to leave it to the electors of each organized county to say whether they would surrender a part oi its territory for the formation of the new county, there would be something in the Act indicating such intention, and the assent of a majority of the electors in each county would have -been required — the Constitution making such assent necessary when an organized county is reduced to less than sixteen townshijDS.

Section eight is in these words: “Within thirty days after the passage of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to transmit by mail to the township clerk of' the township of Hampton a certified copy of this Act.”

Why was not a copy of the Act sent to the organized counties, as well as to the, clerk of the township of Hampton, which is in Bay county, if they were supposed to be interested in the question submitted by the Act?

It • must be certified to the Circuit Court for the county of Saginaw, as the opinion of this Court, that judgment should be given for the defendant on the plea in abatements The other Justices concurred^

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 34 cases

View all citing references →
1859–1860: 11871–1872: 11873–1874: 11879–1880: 21881–1882: 11891–1892: 11897–1898: 11899–1900: 21903–1904: 11913–1914: 11921–1922: 11927–1928: 11931–1932: 11935–1936: 11937–1938: 11943–1944: 11947–1948: 11949–1950: 11953–1954: 11955–1956: 21965–1966: 11967–1968: 11971–1972: 31979–1980: 11983–1984: 11985–1986: 11995–1996: 22017–2018: 118592026peak 1971 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Grand Rapids v. Crocker189 N.W. 221 (Mich. 1922)
  2. Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad99 U.S. 48 (1879)
  3. Melia v. Employment Security Commission78 N.W.2d 273 (Mich. 1956)
  4. State ex rel. Attorney General v. Cunningam51 N.W. 724 (Wis. 1892)
  5. Dussia v. MONROE CTY. EMP. RET. SYS.191 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 1971)
  6. Dussia v. Monroe County Employees Retirement System386 Mich. 244 (1971)

Most recent

  1. City of Detroit v. City of Detroit Board of Zoning Appeals926 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)
  2. West Bloomfield Hospital v. Certificate of Need Board550 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. 1996)
  3. Weems v. Chrysler Corp.533 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. 1995)
  4. People v. Rehkopf370 N.W.2d 296 (Mich. 1985)
  5. Pletz v. Secretary of State336 N.W.2d 789 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)
  6. Fitch v. Crime Victims Compensation Board297 N.W.2d 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list