Case Name: SILSBY v. LYLE
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1898-06-18
Citations: 117 Mich. 327
Docket Number: 
Parties: SILSBY v. LYLE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
SILSBY v. LYLE.
Street Railways — Extension Through Township — Consent op Authorities.
1 How. Stat. § 3530, provides that a street-railway company desiring to extend its tracks through a township shall first obtain the written consent of the supervisor and highway commissioner, and confers upon such officers the power to impose regulations in reference to the location and operation of the road in the township. Held, that the refusal of such officers to consent to a proposed route is notreviewable in the courts.
Gertiorari by George Silsby and Arthur H. Swarthout to review the action of Byron A. Snow, circuit judge of Saginaw county, in denying mandamus to compel James L. Lyle, commissioner of highways of Bridgeport township, to consent to a proposed railway route through said township.
Writ denied June 18, 1898.
Arthur H. Swarthout, for relators.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The relators ask for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the circuit court denying the writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to consent to the proposed route.of their road through the township of Bridgeport. The reason given by the respondent for refusing his consent is his nonapproval of the route through the township. The circuit court refused the writ. The statute provides that street-railway companies may extend their roads through townships by the consent of the supervisor and highway commissioner, and the statute confers upon them the power to consent to regulations in reference to the construction, location, and operation of the portion of the road in the township. 1 How. Stat. § 3530. The power to locate the road is by this statute lodged in these township officials, and courts have not the power to review their action.
The writ is denied.