TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cooper v. People

Seymour Cooper v. The People

Cooper v. People, 2 N.W. 51 (Mich. 1879)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 3, 1879
Judges
Graves, Other
Citations
2 N.W. 5141 Mich. 4031879 Mich. LEXIS 864
Headnotes
Liquor prosecutions under municipal ordinance. The charter of Charlotte requires suits for penalties under liquor ordinances to be brought in the corporate name. Meld that such suits are not criminal prosecutions, but penal actions on the part of the city and cannot bo maintained in the name of The People of the State of Michigan.
Summary
Error to Eaton. Complaint for violation of city ordinance against keeping saloons open after nine o’clock in the evening. Defendant was convicted and alleges error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Graves

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

Graves, J.

Cooper and one Joseph B. Mikesell were tried and convicted before a justice of the peace on a complaint charging them with having violated an ordinance of the city of Charlotte against keeping saloons open during certain hours of the night. They appealed to the circuit court and were again convicted, but Mike-sell died before judgment. Cooper being ordered to pay $25 within twenty-four hours, and in default to be committed to jail until the payment of the fine, but not longer than thirty days, has brought error.

The objection that the suit was not maintainable in the name of the people was well taken. We shall not consider the validity of the ordinance. It is sufficient that it purports to be a local regulation made under special provisions of the charter, and contemplates the application of all pecuniary penalties to the use of the city. The charter is express in requiring suits for the collection of such penalties to be brought in the corporate name, “City of Charlotte.” Charter Laws of 1871, vol. 2, p. 837, § 2; § 55, at p. 864. Such cases are not criminal prosecutions. They are penal actions on the part of the city, and have for their object the vindication of its own domestic regulations, and it is a mistake to *405 suppose the people have any right to sue. Mixer v. Supervisors of Manistee County, 26 Mich., 422 .

It is not necessary to notice other questions. The proceedings must be set aside.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1888: 21890: 11902: 11911: 11918: 118882026peak 1888 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Crawford113 P. 440 (Or. 1911)
  2. In re Cox89 N.W. 440 (Mich. 1902)
  3. People v. Vinton46 N.W. 31 (Mich. 1890)
  4. City of Greeley v. Hamman12 Colo. 94 (1888)
  5. Garland v. City of Denver11 Colo. 534 (1888)
  6. Gilhooley v. Columbus Railway, Power & Light Co.20 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 545 (Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Franklin Civil Division 1918)

Most recent

  1. Gilhooley v. Columbus Railway, Power & Light Co.20 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 545 (Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Franklin Civil Division 1918)
  2. State v. Crawford113 P. 440 (Or. 1911)
  3. In re Cox89 N.W. 440 (Mich. 1902)
  4. People v. Vinton46 N.W. 31 (Mich. 1890)
  5. City of Greeley v. Hamman12 Colo. 94 (1888)
  6. Garland v. City of Denver11 Colo. 534 (1888)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
People ex rel. Mixer v. Bd. of Supervisors, 26 Mich. 422 (1873) 33

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