The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1901-11-15
MANDAMUS DENIED.
ITS REFUSAL no APPROVE DRUGGISTS
BOND.

The supreme court has decided the
mandamus case involving the action of
the township board of Covert in refusing
TO approve the druggists bond of PLY
c. Bailey, and has denied the mandamus.
The case for the town board was man
aged throughout by eX- Prosecutor Titus.
whose past experience had made him
very familiar with the liquor laws of the
state, and he is, naturally, very much
pleased with the result as it settles a
question on which there has been a wide
disagreement among attorneys, viz: The
powers of common councils and town
ship boards in regard to the approval of
bonds of druggists and liquor dealers.
T. j. Cavanaugh of Paw Paw and A. l.,
Hammond of Benton Harbor were the
attorneys for Mr. Bailey.
Following is the substance of the
opinion of the supreme court, written
by Justice Long, the other justices con-
curing;
"a petition was presented by relator( PLY
G. Bailey to the circuit court of Van Blu
rem county for mandamus tocompel the
township board OF Covert township in
that county to approve a certain drug
gist bond, the relator claiming that the
board did not act in good faith in refus-
ING to approve such bond. An order to
show cause was issued, and the board
filed its answer to the petition The
answer sets up substantially that the
board after due consideration decided
that the sureties on the bond were not
financially responsible; that the board
arrived at this conclusion after full and
fair investigation of their property and
its value, and the amount of indebted
ness and liabilities against them; and
that the true reason for the refusal to
approve said bond was that the board
did not believe that the sureties were
pecunarily responsible for theamount oil
said bond The board denies any inten
ton to disregard the rights of relator
and is now willing to accept bond from
relator, provided the same be signed 10y
sureties who are financially responsible
"On the coming in of this answer, thC
relator asked the court that an issue
might be framed as follows: Did the
township board at the time it rejected
the drug bond of the relator act in gooC
faith in determining the sufficiency o
the suretes on said bond, or did it &C
arbitrariIy?' The court denied the APP
plication to frame an issue.
"This court is now asked to issue
mandamus to compel the circuit judge
to set aside the order made and allow tn,
proposed issue of fact.
"The return made by the TOWNSHIP
board shows that that board investigated
the financial responsibility of the sure
ties on the bond, ascertained the valu,
of their property, the membranes
against it, their liability on other simila
bonds and their exemptions, and from
such investigation the board becam,
satisfied that these sureties were no
worth the sum named in the bond
There is no charge made in the petition
that the board acted from malice o
fraud. By the provisions of section
1881, &. l.. 1897, druggist, before h,
can do business, must file a bond will
the county treasurer, etc, the sufficienc!
of which shall be determined by tn,
township board of the township in which
he proposes to carry on such business
Under the provisions of this statute tn,
township board is the sole and fina
Judge of the sufficiency of the sureties
provided it acts fairly and in good faith
ut is elementary that the writ of man
damus will not issue to control the exer
else of judgment or discretion which tn
law vests in an officer. To do so woult
simply result in usurpation by the court
of the very power and discretion which
the law confers upon others. All acts o
duties depending upon a decision of
question of law, or the ascertaining o
matters of fact by an officer or tribuna
charged with the duty, are considered t
be judicial.
4
"The return shows that the boar,