TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Macdonald v. Board of Supervisors

Ex rel. Roderick J. Macdonald v. The Board of Supervisors for the County of Muskegon

Macdonald v. Bd. of Supervisors, 4 N.W. 266 (Mich. 1880)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 23, 1880
Judges
Marston, Other
Citations
4 N.W. 26642 Mich. 5451880 Mich. LEXIS 707
Headnotes
Auditing justice’s accounts. The Justices’ Act contemplates that a justice, in rendering his aeeoimt to- the board of supervisors, shall specify the services in detail, so that the board may determine whether the amounts charged corresponded with the statutory fees. The board is not concluded by the account, but may require proof, and examine his docket and files and the roturas made by him, and where they do so, and rojoct claims on the ground that the services were not performed, or that the charges made exceeded those allowed by statute, their action cannot bo disturbed on a roviow of their finding upon tho facts.
Summary
Mandamus.

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

Opinion of the Court — Marston

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

Marston, C. J.

The petition of relator shows that he was a justice of the peace; that he presented his bill for services to the board. The answer shows that in many of the cases the charges made were rejected and in' others largely reduced, after a careful examination as to the correctness thereof made by the board.

The statute prescribes the amount that shall be allowed a justice of the peace in each case, not in gross, but in detail, and contemplates that in presenting his account to the board of supervisors^ for allowance, the services performed in each case shall be distinctly set forth, so that the board may ascertain and determine whether performed, and if so, that the amount charged therefor is in accordance with' the fees prescribed by the statute. In doing this they are not concluded by the account rendered, but may require further proof, and may examine his docket, and the files and returns made by him, in order to ascertain the correctness of his account. Where they do this and reject his account in whole or in part on the ground either that the services or any part thereof were not performed, or that the charges made were in excess of those allowed by the statute, and reject such overcharges, on items charged for services not performed, we cannot in this manner disturb or interfere with their action. We cannot review their finding upon the facts. *547 and this is what in effect we arc asked to do in this case. People v. Auditors of Wayne, 10 Mich., 308 .

The writ must be denied with costs.

The other justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1882–1883: 118822026peak 1882 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Peck v. Board of Supervisors11 N.W. 279 (Mich. 1882)

Most recent

  1. Peck v. Board of Supervisors11 N.W. 279 (Mich. 1882)

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