Rush v. Common Council

Michigan Supreme Court
Rush v. Common Council, 1 Mich. Pr. 103 (Mich. 1896)

Rush v. Common Council

Opinion of the Court

The facts as established by the answer were:

a — That in the years 1890, 1891, and 1892 the relator was controller of the city of Detroit.

b — That by the charter of the city of Detroit the city controller may be a member of the board of estimates.

c — That relator attended and participated in the deliberations of the board of estimates at their meetings held in the years 1890, 1891, and 1892; ten daily sessions being held in each of the years 1890 and 1891, and nine daily sessions in 1892.

«¡ — That relator presented a petition to the respondent asking payment fpr the sum of $87, which petition was denied.

Reference

Full Case Name
Peter Rush v. The Common Council of the City of Letroit
Status
Published