Where a bounty offered under a law of tlie State Is actually earned, the reduc- . tion of tlie bounty by a subsequent amendment of the law does not deprive the party of the full bounty given by the original act.
Summary
Motion for a mandamus.
The relators showed by their application, that after the act entitled “An Act to encourage the manufacture of salt in the State of Michigan,” approved February 15, 1859 (Laws of 1859, p. 551) was passed and took effect, and before the ninth day of March, 1861, they had manufactured at their salt works upon Saginaw River, 6348 barrels of salt, of five bushels each, upon which they claimed the bounty of ten cents per barrel offered by said act: that they presented to the Board of State Auditors an account thereof, but that said Board refused to allow the bounty offered by said act, but allowed instead a bounty of ten cents per barrel under the act amendatory of said act, approved March 15, 1861 (Laws of 1861, p. 805). A mandamus was now asked to compel an allowance of the bounty offered by the original act.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The Court
held that the relators had acquired a vested right to the bounty offered by the act of 1859, upon all the salt manufactured before the act of 1861 took effect, and that they could not be deprived thereof by the last mentioned act.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
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.
