People ex rel. Kuhn v. Board of Auditors
The People on relation of Joseph Kuhn v. The Board of Auditors of Wayne County
Headnotes
Summary
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.
Martin 'Ch. J.:
Our view of the question remains unchanged. It is_clearly a case where we have no jurisdiction.
Campbell J.:
This is a mere attempt .to induce us to review the action of the Auditors upon the facts. That could be nothing but an appeal. The case is very different from those in 3d and 8th Mich., where the amounts were liquidated. Here it was a question of fact whether the services were rendered or not. If the Auditors should wilfully or maliciously refuse to act upon the facts jiresented to them, there might be a remedy; but this is not that case.
Hand. But here the Auditors disregarded the evidence furnished.
The Cheep Justice:'
These papers present simply the question whether the decision of the Auditors was correct upon the facts.
Motion denied, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.