Case ID: mich_117/html/0317-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GRISWOLD v. COMMON COUNCIL OF LUDINGTON.
    Municipal Corporations —Enforcement of Judgments — Mandamus.
    
      Mandamus will not lié to compel the officers and common council of a city to pay a judgment out of moneys on hand, where such moneys were raised and are required for other purposes; the creditor’s remedy being under the statute re- * quiring such judgments to be spread upon the tax roll.
    
      Mandamus by A. Linley Griswold against the common council of the city of Ludington and others to compel the payment of a judgment obtained by relator against the city.
    Submitted June 7, 1898.
    Writ denied June 8, 1898.
    
      Cutcheon & Swarthout, for relator.
    
      Humphrey S. Gray, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The relator obtained a judgment against the city of Ludington. He presented a demand to the common council for the payment of the judgment out of the funds then in the treasury. The return of the respondents shows that the moneys then on hand were raised and required for other purposes than the payment of judgments against the municipality. The proper course for the relator is to proceed under the statute requiring judgments so recovered to be spread upon the tax roll.

Mandamus denied.