TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Portman v. State Board of Fish Commissioners

James G. Portman v. State Board of Fish Commissioners

Portman v. State Bd. of Fish Comm'rs, 15 N.W. 106 (Mich. 1883)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 27, 1883
Judges
Cooley, Graves, Marston
Citations
15 N.W. 10650 Mich. 258
Headnotes
Superintendent of fisheries. The superintendent of fisheries is not an officer within the meaning of the Oonstitutiun and laws of the State, but is an employee of the State Board of Eish Commissioners and is removable at their pleasure. Mandamus will not lie against a public board at the suit of an employee thereof, for redress for a breach of contract, but he may have a claim for damages.
Summary
Mandamus. Belator, being Superintendent of Fisheries for the State of Michigan, was removed from that position by the State Board of Fish Commissioners. He remained in charge of one of the fish hatcheries, though the Board refused to recognize his right to do so, and he applied for a mandamus to require the Board to rescind its action discharging him; to expunge from its records the‘minute of this action; to treat him as Superintendent, having all rights pertaining to that position; to surrender to him a certain note which he had executed and indorsed in his individual capacity as Superintendent, for the purpose of raising money to pay for lands which the Board wished to acquire, which note was not used for that purpose, but was paid by the Board after maturity and held by- them; and to certify his salary bills for the period succeeding his removal.

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, J.

We are of opinion that the Superintendent of Fisheries is not an officer within'the meaning of the Constitution and laws of this State ; that he is an employee of the Board, subject to their orders and directions, and that they have power to terminate at any time the contract relations existing between the Board and Superintendent. This is absolutely necessary to the efficiency of the work which the Board was created to perform, and any other view would render the Board to a great extent subservient to the will of the Superintendent. If there has been a breach of contract relator may have a claim for damages, but mandamus would not be the proper remedy.

It follows that the relief prayed for must be denied.

Graves, C. J. and Cooley, J. concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1890: 11893: 11898: 11899: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fuller v. Ellis57 N.W. 33 (Mich. 1893)
  2. Board of Education v. State ex rel. Reed76 N.W. 351 (Wis. 1898)
  3. Attorney-General ex rel. Adams v. McCaughey43 A. 646 (R.I. 1899)
  4. Attorney General ex rel. Hart v. Cain47 N.W. 484 (Mich. 1890)

Most recent

  1. Attorney-General ex rel. Adams v. McCaughey43 A. 646 (R.I. 1899)
  2. Board of Education v. State ex rel. Reed76 N.W. 351 (Wis. 1898)
  3. Fuller v. Ellis57 N.W. 33 (Mich. 1893)
  4. Attorney General ex rel. Hart v. Cain47 N.W. 484 (Mich. 1890)

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