Case Name: The People ex rel. School District No. 1 of the Township of Portage v. Wm. Ryan, Supervisor
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1868-07-08
Citations: 17 Mich. 159
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. School District No. 1 of the Township of Portage v. Wm. Ryan, Supervisor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. School District No. 1 of the Township of Portage v. Wm. Ryan, Supervisor.
j'Return to writ of mandamus: When sufficient. Where the return to a writ of mandamus showed, amongst other things, that the respondent, a supervisor, was ignorant whether a certain school district was organized, or whether it had enlarged its boundaries,, and that, therefore, he could neither admit nor deny the same: Held, sufficient to present an issue for trial.
Heard and decided July 8th.
Mandamws.
This was a motion for a further return to the writ.
The petition, among other things, alleges that the school district aforesaid, on September 23, 1863, was duly organized, and that, at that time, by a vote, it enlarged its boundaries so as to embrace the whole of said township of Portage, and that this action was subsequently confirmed by an act of the Legislature, and that certain school taxes for said school district ought to be levied and assessed upon the whole of said township or district. It seems that the territory of the township of Portage has, since 1863, been divided into several new townships, among which are the township of Adams, of which the respondent is the supervisor, and he refuses to levy and assess said school taxes upon the property embraced within said new township of Aclams, claiming that they have organized a school district of their own within said new township of Adams, and should not pay taxes to support said school district of Portage township. The respondent in his return set up these facts, but stated that he was ignorant whether said school district number one was duly organized, or whether it, by a vote, duly enlarged its boundaries, as alleged, etc., and that, therefore, he could neither admit nor deny the same. The relator deeming such return unsatisfactory and evasive, moved for a further return for the reason that no issue could be based on said return, as it did not deny the facts averred; citing 9 Wend. Ifi9; 10 Id. %8. ■
G. V. N. Lofhrop, and L. 8.' Troiobridge, for the motion.
E. G. Hinsdale and G. I. Waller, contra.

Opinion:
The Court held that the return was satisfactory and sufficient, and that it was the proper return to be made under the circumstances; and that the old common law rule as to such returns had been abolished by this court, and there was no practical difficulty in framing proper issues from such a ruling under the practice of this court, as no right to a writ could exist, unless the facts should be either admitted or proved, and a party can not be compelled, under oath, to admit or deny what he has no means of knowing with certainty.
Ordered, that the cause be sent down to Houghton Cir-' Quit to be tried on such issue.
Motion denied.