Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1910-02-03
JUDGE S DENIES WRIT Of NANANI and SEAI ACTION Of THE SUPERVISORS

I attIdaVits by one or more resident
electors of such election district,
stating therein that an exact copy
of such petition and of all the sigma
lures thereto has been posted in
in such election district for at least
ten days Immediately prior TO its
presentation to the county clerk, and
also that affiant shall state that he is
personally acquainted with such peti-
tioners and knows that they reside
within such election district and that
the signatures are genuine, but if no
poll list is obtained he shall swear
that the persons whose names are at
tached TO said petition are to the
best of his knowledge and belief
qualified electors in such election dis
trict
Section provides that when such
petitions have been so presented to
the county clerk, he shall file the
same and when it shall appear upon
the face thereof and by the poll lists
! or returns of the last general elec
tion that one-third Of all the quail
fed electors have petitioned for such
submis sion, he shall call the attcn-
tion of the board to the same.
Section provides that the clerk
shall lay said petitions before the
! board, and when upon examination
il shall appear to the board upon the
face OF said petitions and by he
! poll lists or returns OF the last gen
eral election that such submission
has been prayed for by the requisite
number of electors as hereinbefore
provided, they shall by resolution
determine and declare to that effect,
and such determinations shall be final
as 10 the suffciency OF the petition
and the requisite number of electors
signing the same and they shall
/ thereupon issue an order directing
that such question shall be voted up
on, etc
Section Is provides that at the end
of two years the board may again
upon like petition re-submit the
matter While the statute uses the
word may in this section, | think
it should be construed the same as
| though il used the word shall" as
I in the other section, and that the
board are in duty bound to re-sub-
NIT the matter when proper petit
tions are fled and proper steps have
been taken in accordance with the
statute, to the same extent that they
are bound to submit it in the first in
stance.
Coming again to the question of
whether the action of the board is
final or whether ii can be reviewed
by the courts. | find that we have a
situation presented here which has
never been passed on by our SUI
preme Court
In I'riesncr vs.. Common Coun-
Gil, 81 Michigan, 5O4. the court,
after quoting the statute. say.
Acting under the authority of
this section. the Board OF Sup
ervisors did make the determina-
tion required by law Having OBJ
tanned jurisdiction of the subject
matter by the call of the County
/ Clerk and by petitions the validity of
which appears signed by sufficient
number To authorize the County
| Clerk of act. the determination OF
the board is, as we think, wisely
made final
In Covert VS. Munson, 93 Michi-
gan. 6O3, a case which went up from
again raised but the court held that
it could not consider it "as the dec
laration of the Board of Supervisors
on that subject is made final by the
provisions of the act itself"
In Thomas vs.. Abbott, 1O5 Mich
igan, 6s7, the could held that the
resolution being adopted in conform
ity TO law, and the record thereof
being regular. is conclusive both as
to the sufficiency OF the petitions
and the requisite number of electors
signing the same
In Attorney General vs. Circuit
Judge, 143 Michigan, 300, the ques
ton was raised that the affidavits OF
posting were prematurely made and
that copies of the petitions were not
in fact properly posted. but the court
held that the legislature had vested
the board with authority to deter
mine the Sufficiency of the petition
and that this necessarily involved the
right To make inquiry and determine
whether or not the essential prelim.
mary steps had been taken TO give
the board jurisdiction to determine
the main question, and that both
these questions were by the statute
and the decisions of this court made
final and not subject to review by
the courts
Wernstein VS. Calhoun Supervisors,
156 Michigan, 63, is to the same ef.
feet
However. in all these cases the
board had determined that it had
jurisdiction and that the preliminary
steps had been properly taken and
had passed resolutions submitting