TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brazee v. Raymond

Morgan Brazee v. Selah Raymond, Harvey S. Bowen, Marian D. Haire and Sylvester Lamb, Composing Town Board, etc.

Brazee v. Raymond, 26 N.W. 699 (Mich. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 3, 1886
Judges
Morse, Other
Citations
26 N.W. 69959 Mich. 5481886 Mich. LEXIS 1045
Headnotes
Highway — Laying out same — Appeal to town board — Proof of notice to commissioner and appellant of meeting at which appeal is heard, essential to confer jurisdiction — Recited of such service in determination of board, insufficient to establish fact of service. 1. The return of a township board to a certiorari, to review its proceedings upon an appeal from the action of a highway commissioner in laying out a highway, showed that the commissioner and appellant had no notice of the meeting at which action was taken on the appeal, and failed to show that they were present. Held, that the board acquired no jurisdiction to act upon the appeal: Tefft v. Township Board of Hamtramck, 38 Mich. 525; Prescott v. Patterson, 44 Mich. 525. 2. The recital in the determination of the board, that the statutory notice was given is not sufficient. The notice was a prerequisite to the right of the board to proceed, and proof that it was given cannot be inferred or established from such recital: Dupont v. Highway Com. of Hamtramck, 28 Mich. 362. 8. The Highway Commission is a necessary party to certiorari proceedings to investigate his action in laying out a highway.
Summary
Certiorari. The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Morse

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

Morse, J.

Certiorari to review the proceedings of the township board of Kollin, Lenawee county, upon an appeal taken by the plaintiff from the action of the highway commissioner of said township in laying out a highway.

From the return of the township board, it appears very clearly that they acquired no jurisdiction to act upon the appeal. There was no proof before them, when they met and acted, that the appellant or the commissioner had been given the notice of the meeting required by the statute, nor is there any showing that either the appellant or the commissioner was present. The want of due proof of notice is fatal: Tefft v. Township Board of Hamtramck, 38 Mich. 558 ; Prescott v. Patterson, 44 Mich. 525 .

The recital of the fact in the determination of the board, as follows : “ And whereas, at least ten days’ notice of the hearing of said appeal has been given to the said commissioner and the said appellant” — is not sufficient. The notice was a prerequisite to the right of the board to proceed, and the proof that it was given cannot be inferred or established from a recital in the order that it was done: Dupont v. Highway Com'rs of Hamtramck, 28 Mich. 362 ; Tefft v. Hamtramck, supra. The proceedings of the township board were therefore unlawful, and the order affirming the action of the commissioner must be quashed.

We cannot, under this writ, enter irpon any investigation *550 into the action of the highway commissioner. He is not made a party to the writ, and has made no return to us of his action. It is true, the township board has returned to this Court all the papers and proceedings appertaining to the laying out of this highway on file or of record in the township clerk’s office, but we are not willing to pass upon the action of the commissioner in a proceeding of this kind, to which he is not a party.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1890: 11898: 11903: 11908: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Benwood v. Wheeling Railway Co.44 S.E. 271 (W. Va. 1903)
  2. Sanger v. Township Board of Brownstown76 N.W. 121 (Mich. 1898)
  3. Leonard v. Sparks63 Mo. App. 585 (1890)
  4. La Barre v. Bent118 N.W. 6 (Mich. 1908)

Most recent

  1. La Barre v. Bent118 N.W. 6 (Mich. 1908)
  2. City of Benwood v. Wheeling Railway Co.44 S.E. 271 (W. Va. 1903)
  3. Sanger v. Township Board of Brownstown76 N.W. 121 (Mich. 1898)
  4. Leonard v. Sparks63 Mo. App. 585 (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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Dupont v. Highway Comm'rs, 28 Mich. 362 (1873) 11
Prescott v. Patterson, 7 N.W. 237 (Mich. 1880) 7
People ex rel. Tefft v. Twp. Bd., 38 Mich. 558 (1878) 3

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