Page images
PDF
EPUB

Macomb and Wayne counties, and I have therefore examined them myself. I do not see how the amendments can stand. The statute, if I remember correctly, requires the notice of the annual meeting, at which the amendments are made, to be published at least five successive weeks. You will notice that the affidavit of publication states, that the notice was published for two successive weeks, and that the first publication thereof was on the 13th day of 1890. That was probably on the 13th day of March, and even if the affidavit omitted to state the number of insertions as two, still it would not give sufficient length of time for the five insertions before the meeting.

[blocks in formation]

Construction of Sec. 5345 Howell's Statutes, relating to assignment of certificate of sale issued by Commissioner of the State Land Office.

Lansing, Mich., May 20, 1890.

Hon. Henry S. Sleeper, Deputy State Land Commissioner, Lansing, Mich.

DEAR SIR-In reply to your inquiry of the 19th inst. (50318), as to whether patent should issue upon the papers presented for my examination, will say that in my opinion the assignment is not sufficient under section 5345 of Howell's Statutes to authorize the issuing of a patent. The assignment of the certificate is not only conditional in terms, but its execution fails entirely to fulfill the requirements of the statute.

Very truly yours,

B. W. HUSTON,
Attorney General.
Per JAY P. LEE,
Assistant.

[No. 16.]

Construction of. Act No. 195 Public Acts of 1889, relative to taxation of bank property.

Lansing, Mich., May 20, 1890.

Hon. T. C. Sherwood, Commissioner Banking Department, Lansing, Mich.:

DEAR SIR-In reply to your inquiry of the 17th inst. concerning the taxation of bank property under act 195 of the Public Acts of 1889, permit me to say that in my opinion the mortgages owned by the bank are not subject to taxation, and that only the real estate can be taxed to the bank. I think the construction of the statute comes within the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lenawee County Savings Bank vs. City of Adrian, et al., in the 66 Michigan, 273.

Very truly yours,

B. W. HUSTON,
Attorney General.
Per JAY P. LEE,
Assistant.

[No. 17.]

Construction of Secs. 705 and 713 Howell's Statutes.

Lansing, Mich., May 26, 1890.

Hon. Francis B. Egan, Deputy Secretary of State, Lansing, Mich.: DEAR SIR-In reply to your inquiry of the 16th inst., as to the construction of sections 705 and 713, of Howell's Statutes will say that in my opinion it must be construed

to have been the intention of the Legislature, that sections 705 and 713 should be controlled by the provisions of the statute governing general elections in force at the time the construction is sought, and that those sections must be construed as including the amendments to, or statutes superseding the provisions of chapter 5 referred to by those sections. It cannot be possible that the court will say that a reference statute of this nature, must be confined to the provisions of the statute referred to which were in force at the time of its passage. Very truly yours,

B. W. HUSTON,
Attorney General.
Per JAY P. LEE,
Assistant.

[No. 18.]

Construction of act No. 23, Session Laws of 1864, relative to State Bounties.

Hon. Board of State Auditors, Lansing, Mich.:

Lansing, Mich., May 28, 1890.

GENTLEMEN-Upon examination I am inclined to think that the opinion given you May 1, 1890, is correct, and that the act of February 5, 1864, is not confined to the call of 200,000 men made February 1, 1864, by the President. Before the call of the President, February 1, 1864, a bill was introduced in the Senate, January 28, 1864 providing for a State bounty of $100 in certain cases, section six reading as follows: "There shall be paid from the war fund a uniform State bounty of $100 to each non-commissioned officer, musician or private, that may be enlisted and be mustered into the service of the United States, after the present quota from this State shall be filled in any regiment, battery or company mustered from this State into the military service of the United States." It will be seen that this section provides for the payment of a State bounty to those enlisting after the quota on the call of October 17, 1863, had been filled, and it must be understood to apply to future calls of the President. This bill with the provisions for a State bounty, passed the Senate January 30, 1864, two days before the call of February first. This bill, in that form, was taken up in the House and amended, and ordered printed. On the third of February 1864, some new sections were added to the bill by the House, section 6, remaining precisely the same, with the exception that it was numbered 8 in the amended bill, by the House, and on the third of February, 1864, section 8 was amended so as to read as follows: Section 8. "There shall be paid, from the war fund of this State a uniform State bounty of $100 to each person below the rank of a non-commissioned officer, who may hereafter enlist and be mustered into the military service of the United States, and who shall be credited on the quota of this State, or any military district thereof under any call or order of the President, or military authorities of the United States, or of this State, made or issued since the first day of January, A. D. 1864." It will be observed by the preceding, that the Senate passed a bill providing for a bounty of $100, in certain cases before the call of February 1, 1864, and that the bill as passed by the Senate, expressly provides for paying such bounty on subsequent calls that might be made after the bill became a law. The townships and municipalities in many cases, had been paying the local bounties, and the bill as passed by the Senate, was intended in its provisions to legalize the action that had been taken by the different municipalities in the State in providing for local bounties, limiting the same to the three last calls made by the President, and to not exceed $200 in each case. The same bill was passed, after certain amendments made to it by the House, limiting the authority of the municipalities as stated above, and providing that on any subsequent call, as appears by section 6 of the act of 1864, that municipalities should only pay a bounty of 8100 "to fill the quota of such township or city, or any call for volunteers made by the President of the United States, since January 20, 1864, or which he may hereafter make," showing that it was intended to give the municipalities authority, to pay $100 local bounty on future calls in filling the quota of their towns. I think that sections 6 and 8 must be construed together, especially in view of the history of the legislation in question, and although section 8 uses the language "Under any call

or order of the President or military authorities of the United States, or of this State made or issued since the first day of January, A. D. 1864," it appears to me that the intention of the legislature is clear, that townships were to have the right to pay a bounty of $100 on subsequent calls or all calls after the 20th of January, and the State to pay $100 making the same amount as was authorized by the same act under the three last calls before February 1, 1864, that could be paid by towns, etc.

I think this view is sustained by the opinion of Chief Justice Christiancy in the case of the People vs. Hammond, 13 Mich., 255, although the identical case being considered now was not before the Court. The Court says, "Why this distinction in the amounts of the bounties allowed to be raised by the local authorities in the two cases-two hundred dollars under past calls and only one hundred dollars on any call made, or to be made after the 20th of January, 1864? The reason to me seems plain. The cases provided for in the sixth section, limiting the amount to be raised by the local authorities to $100 are intended to be the same as those for which a State bounty of $100 is provided in the eighth section, thus making the aggregate of the State and local bounty, under the sixth and eighth sections, the same amount as in cases provided for under the former calls in the fourth section. Under former calls and the provisions of the fourth section, the local authorities are relied upon for whatever amount is to be raised, not exceeding $200; under the sixth and eighth sections, the State raises one half of this sum, and the local authorities are authorized to raise the balance, or so much of it as they may judge proper." Therefore I am of the opinion that the act of 1864, so far as it refers to State bounties, is not confied to the call of the President made February 1, 1864, but would apply to subsequent calls.

Judge Christiancy distinctly says, "The cases provided in the sixth section limiting the amount to be raised by local authorities to $100 are intended to be the same as those for which a State bounty of $100 is provided in the eighth section." Very truly yours,

B. W. HUSTON,

Attorney General.

[No. 19.]

Proceedings in case of neglect upon the part of Boards of Health to appoint Health Officer.

Lansing, Mich., June 7, 1890.

Hon. Henry B. Baker, Secretary State Board of Health, Lansing, Mich.;

DEAR SIR-In reply to your inquiry of the 3d inst., as to the proceedings to be taken in cases where the Board of Health of a city or village refuses or willfully neglects to appoint a health officer, will say that I am unable to find any statutory provision imposing any penalty upon the members of the board for such refusal or willful neglect, and the only remedy would be removal. In cases where members of the Board of Health are chosen by the electors of any city or village they might be removed for such neglect or refusal by the Governor, as provided by sections 653 and 656 inclusive, of Howell's statutes. If the members of the board hold office by appointment the proceedings for removal will be governed by the statute under which the city was incorporated, either the general law or the special charter. In such cases the power of removal ordinarily rests with the officer or board having the power of appointment.

Very truly yours,

[ocr errors]

B. W. HUSTON,

Attorney General. Per J. P. LEE,

Assistant.

[No. 20.]

Construction of disputed transfer of School Certificate No. 7989, and validity of Joint Resolution No. 34, Laws of 1887.

Lansing, Mich., June 21, 1890.

Hon. Henry S. Sleeper, Deputy State Land Commissioner, Lansing, Mich.:

DEAR SIR-In reply to your inquiry of the 17th inst., in relation to primary school certificate No. 7989, issued to Joseph Hague for the south half of southeast quarter of section 16, township 7 south, range 6 east, permit me to say that in my opinion the construction put upon the transfer, from Hague to Lefever, by your department and the Department of State is correct, and that no patent ought to be issued until the rights of the parties may be either amicably adjusted, or determined by proceedings in court. I do not think it within the power of the legislature to determine the rights of parties in the manner attempted by joint resolution No. 34, passed by the legislature of 1887. Very truly yours, JAY P. LEE,

Assistant to the Attorney General.

SCHEDULE H.

This schedule contains an abstract of the business of the prosecuting attorneys of the several counties as reported to this office comprising, first, the reports which were sent to the office under the administration of Hon. S. V. R. Trowbridge for the report of 1889, and second, the reports sent to this office of the business from January 1 to July 1, of the present year. Owing to the change of the date of the report it has been difficult to obtain reports from the prosecuting attorneys, and the report from January 1 to July 1 is accordingly incomplete.

ABSTRACTS

Of reports of Prosecuting Attorneys for the year ending Dec. 31, 1889.

[blocks in formation]

Malicious injury to property

Selling liquor without paying tax.
Uttering forged order

3 Convicted, 1 fined $5 and costs; 2 sentence sus-
pended.

6 Three convicted of whom 1 was fined $50; 1 fined $25 and sentence suspended; 3 pending.

1 Convicted and sentence suspended.

« PreviousContinue »