Case Name: The People on the relation of Bernard Youngblood v. George H. Stellwagen
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1875-10-26
Citations: 33 Mich. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People on the relation of Bernard Youngblood v. George H. Stellwagen.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
The People on the relation of Bernard Youngblood v. George H. Stellwagen.
Town treasurer: Residence: Territory detached: Town limits: Vacancy. Where one who has been elected town treasurer is, during his term, by an act of the legislature detaching from the township and annexing to an adjoining city the territory within which such officer resides, placed outside the town limits, and the town board thereupon appoint another town treasurer in his place, such prior officer is not thereafter entitled to demand and receive of the county treasurer moneys in his hands belonging to the township.
Heard and decided October 26.
Application for Mandamus.
The petition showed that relator was elected treasurer of the township of Hamtramck, in Wayne county, at the spring election of 1875, and qualified as such, and has eyer since been and still is acting in that capacity; that the respondent as county treasurer has collected, under Act No. 228 of Session Laws of 1875, a large amount of money which is credited to the contingent fund of said township, and .which under said act belongs to said township and to said fund ; that relator has made demand for the same, which respondent refuses to comply with; and prays for mandamus to compel respondent to pay said moneys oyer to relator as township treasurer.
John Atkinson, for the relator,
in presenting the petition and asking for an order to show cause, stated to .the court that the relator resided within the territory which, by Act No. 397 of the Laws of 1875, was detached from Hamtramclc and annexed to the city of Detroit, and called the attention of the court to that act; he also stated that the town board, after the taking eifect of said act, met and appointed a new town treasurer in relator’s place.

Opinion:
The Court
denied the writ on the ground that the statement of the counsel, that the party is by said act placed outside the town limits, shows prima facie that he is not treasurer and that he has no right to the moneys.