CHARGE TO JURY-Continued.
further instructed that the defendant is liable only if he
removed the machinery in an improper manner, so that it
was injured, no room is left for misapprehension. Wreggitt
v. Barnett, 477.
class legislation," is to be understood such legislation as
denies rights to one which are accorded to others, or inflicts
upon one individual a more severe penalty than is imposed
upon another in like case offending. People v. Bellet, 151.
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS-See HIGHWAYS (3, 4); MUNIC-
CONFESSIONS-See CRIMINAL LAW (14).
The payment of a portion, only, of a debt, when the debtor
is bound to pay the whole, furnishes no consideration for a
promise by the creditor to discharge the debtor.
Leeson v.
Anderson, 247.
See SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (3).
1. Act No. 264, Laws of 1889, entitled "An act relative to dis-
orderly persons," etc., is not open to the objection that the
title gives no information as to what acts constitute a dis-
orderly person, or that the third offense, for which a pun-
ishment is prescribed, is not expressed in the title. People
v. Kelly, 82.
2. An objection that an act of the Legislature was not con-
stitutionally passed because not read in full, but by its title
only, upon the first and second reading, will not be consid-
ered when raised for the first time in the Supreme Court
upon appeal. People v. Luby, 90.
3. Act No. 207, Laws of 1893, popularly known as the "Jag
Cure Act," is unconstitutional. Senate of Happy Home
Clubs v. Board of Supervisors, 117.
4. Act No. 148, Laws of 1893, which makes it unlawful for
barbers to carry on their business on the first day of the
week, commonly called "Sunday," and excepts from this
inhibition persons who conscientiously believe the seventh
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
day of the week should be observed as the Sabbath, and
actually refrain from secular business on that day, is within
the police power of the State, and is not in conflict with any
express provision of the Constitution, nor with the four-
teenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
People v. Bellet, 151.
5. Section 35, art. 6, of the Constitution, which provides that
"the style of all process shall be, 'In the Name of the
People of the State of Michigan,'” applies to the judicial
department only. Attorney General v. Jochim, 358.
6. A citation by the Governor to State officers to appear before
him, and show cause why they should not be removed from
office, is not an official act, within the meaning of section
18, art. 5, of the Constitution, which provides that "all
official acts of the Governor, his approval of the laws ex-
cepted, shall be authenticated by the great seal of the State."
Id.
7. Section 8, art. 12, of the Constitution, which provides that
"the Governor shall have power, and it shall be his duty,
except at such time as the Legislature may be in session, to
examine into the condition and administration of any public
office, and the acts of any public officer, elective or appointed,
to remove from office for gross neglect of duty, or for cor-
rupt conduct in office, or any other misfeasance or malfeas-
ance therein, either of the following State officers, to wit,
the Attorney General, State Treasurer, Commissioner of
Land Office, Secretary of State, Auditor General, Superin-
tendent of Public Instruction, or members of the State
Board of Education, or any other officer of the State, except
legislative and judicial, elective or appointed, and to appoint
a successor for the remainder of their respective unexpired
term of office," is not in conflict with section 1 of the four-
teenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
which provides that no state shall " deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Id.
8. The Secretary of State, State Treasurer, and Commissioner
of the State Land Office, while acting as members of the
Board of State Canvassers, are guilty of gross neglect of duty,
within the meaning of the constitutional provision above
cited, in certifying as correct a tabulated statement prepare 1
by their clerks, to whom the returns of election were turned
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
over, purporting to show the number of votes cast for and
against a constitutional amendment, without comparing or
examining the returns from any county, or comparing them
with said tabulated statement, and in reliance solely upon
the statements of said clerks that said tabular statement is
correct. Id.
9. The provision of Act No. 118, Laws of 1893, which vests
the government and control of the House of Correction and
Reformatory at Ionia in a board of control, to consist of
three members, not more than two of whom shall be of the
same political party, to be appointed by the Governor by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was passed
for a salutary purpose, and violates no provision of the Con-
stitution. Attorney General v. Parsell, 381.
10. Act No. 394, Local Acts of 1893, which gives to the mayor
of the city of Detroit, as ex officio member of the board of
education, certain veto power, is constitutional. Pingree v.
Board of Education, 404.
11. Act No. 124, Laws of 1883, which authorizes cities and
villages to take private property for the use or benefit of
the public, and provides for the ascertainment of the amount
of damage, the determination of the amount to be assessed
upon the particular locality deemed to be benefited, the fix-
'ing of the district deemed to be benefited, and the manner
of assessment, and then refers to the charter of the munic-
ipality for the machinery to be employed in making the assess-
ment and levying and collecting the taxes, and for the forms
to be observed in such proceedings, states both the tax and
the object, and hence is not in conflict with section. 14 of
article 14 of the Constitution, which provides that every law
which imposes, continues, or revives a tax shall distinctly
state the tax, and the object to which it is to be applied,
and that it shall not be sufficient to refer to any other law
to fix such tax or object. Trowbridge v. City of Detroit, 443.
12. The case of Springer v. Board of Auditors, 99 Mich. 513,
in which it was held that the "enlarged compensation," to
which an attorney appointed to defend in a criminal case,
and who removes the case to the Supreme Court, is entitled
under How. Stat. § 9047, must be fixed by that Court, is
overruled, being in conflict with section 10, art. 10, of the
Constitution, to which the attention of the Court was not called,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
which vests in the board of auditors of Wayne county, and
in the boards of supervisors of the counties generally, the
exclusive power to prescribe and fix the compensation for all
services rendered for, and to adjust all claims against, their
respective counties, and provides that the sum so fixed or
defined shall be subject to no appeal. People v. Hanifan,
516.
13. The section of the Constitution cited does not give to the
boards there mentioned unlimited authority to allow or dis-
allow at will all claims that may be presented to them. Id.
14. Section 20 of Act No. 313, Laws of 1887, which makes any
person who sells or furnishes intoxicating liquors to a minor
liable for both actual and exemplary damages therefor to the
father or mother in such sum, not less than $50 in each case,
as the court or jury shall determine, is not open to the
objection that, in authorizing the recovery of a fixed sum
without proof of actual damages, it amounts to the taking
of property without due process of law. Cramer v. Daniel-
son, 531.
1. The term "purchase scale," as used in a contract made by
the assignee of an insolvent firm to manufacture certain pine and
ash logs which had been purchased for the firm by one of
its members, and afterwards sold to him by the firm, which
had agreed to saw them for him at a fixed price per thou-
sand, the pine logs at " purchase scale” and the ash logs at
"full scale," and which terms were used in like manner in
the contract made by the assignee, is construed as meaning,
as to the pine logs, the scale made when they were pur-
chased for the firm. Hayes v. Cummings, 206.
2. Where contractors are prevented from performing a logging
contract by the sale by the contractees of that portion of the
land out of which alone a profit could have been made, the
contractors are not obliged to go on and lumber the remain-
ing lands at a loss, but may bring suit for breach of the
contract. Lee v. Briggs, 487.
3. In an action by a servant to recover damages for his wrong-
ful discharge, the burden of proof is upon the master to show
what, if any, effort was made by the servant to obtain em-
ployment during the remainder of the period for which h
was hired. Allen v. Whitlark, 492.
See ACCOUNT STATED; EQUITY JURISDICTION (2); LIFE INSUR-
ANCE (2); SALE; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE,
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-See NEGLIGENCE (3-5, 11, 12,
17, 18).
1. The failure to describe the defendant as a foreign corpora-
tion in a summons issued under How. Stat. § 8087, which
authorizes the commencement of suit against a foreign cor-
poration where garnishment proceedings have been instituted
in aid of the principal suit, will not deprive the court of
jurisdiction. Williams v. International Grain & Stock
Board, 80.
2. A delay by stockholders for 10 years after an alleged fraud-
ulent purchase of a portion of the unissued stock of the cor-
poration by one of its directors from a stranger, to whom
all of said stock had been sold by the board of directors, is
fatal to the maintenance of a bill to compel the director to
pay over to the corporation the moneys obtained by him by
means of his alleged fraudulent purchase. Keeney v. Con-
verse, 316.
3. The alleged fraudulent character of the provisions of a
mortgage given to a director of a corporation by order of its
board of directors cuts little figure in a suit by stockholders
against the director, in which he is charged with wrecking
the corporation by the improper use of the mortgage, unless
it appears that the mortgage has been used to the injury of
the complaining stockholders. Id.
4. There is no necessity for an accounting by the director if
it appears that he has no property that ever belonged to the
corporation. Id.
See EVIDENCE (23); RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES; notes, 461, 462.
1. A judgment for costs in favor of an appellant from probate
court bears interest from the date of its rendition. Hayden
v. Hefferan, 262.
2. Mandamus will lie to compel an administrator to pay inter-
|