furnishing of water to private parties, in violation of Sec. 11384, C. L. 1897. Owing to local conditions the writ was not granted but the court in the opinion stated "it is apparent that serious inconvenience and danger to health would result from a summary deprivation of the use of the water and sewers." "It may not be improper to say that the respondent is not by the act of the legislature expressly empowered to make such contracts. It is at least a doubtful question whether such power exists by implication. It must not be inferred that we hold that the legis lature may confer such power upon the respondent." (152 Mich. 689).

Charles F. Smith v. James B. Bradley, Auditor General. Supreme court. Application for mandamus to compel issuance of certificate of error. Submitted, February 28. Writ denied, March 17, 1908. 115 N. W. 735; 151 Mich. 622.

Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. James V. Barry, Commissioner of Insurance. Supreme court. Mandamus to compel withdrawal of disapproval of certain policy forms. Submitted, February 27. Writ granted, March 17, 1908. 151 Mich. 610.

John J. Carton, as President of the Constitutional Convention v. George A. Prescott, Secretary of State. Supreme court. Mandamus to compel submission of proposed constitution at November general election. Submitted, February 27. Writ granted, March 9, 1908. 115 N. W. 429; 151 Mich. 337.

Henry E. Chase, Deputy Attorney General, v. Board of Election Commissioners of Wayne County. Supreme court. Mandamus to compel submission of proposed amendment to the constitution to the people at the April election. Submitted, March 5. Writ denied March 9, 1908. 115 N. W. 454; 151 Mich. 407.

MANDAMUS CASES DISPOSED OF.

CIRCUIT COURTS.

Charles A. Blair, Attorney General, ex rel., Bernard Zmigswaski et al. v. The Council of the Village of Glenwood, et al. Wayne circuit. Application for mandamus to compel the village council to convene and call a special meeting of the electors to vote upon question of incorporation. Stipulation filed April 2, 1908, disposing of the case stated"The above cause having been finally disposed of is discontinued without costs to either party."

MANDAMUS CASES PENDING.

SUPREME COURT.

The State of Michigan v. George S. Hosmer, and Morse Rohnert, Judges of the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne. (No. 20,823.) Argued and submitted June 3, 1905. Writ denied September 20, 1905. (12 D. L. N. 493; 104 N. W. 637.) Re-hearing granted October 31, 1905. Re-hearing pending. (This case is in re M. C. R. R. Co. v. State of Mich. charter case, Wayne circuit.)

The Regents of the University of Michigan v. James B. Bradley, Auditor General. No. 21,703.

Knights of the Modern Maccabees, et al. v. James V. Barry, Commissioner of Insurance. Supreme court, No. 22,743. Submitted, March 17, 1908.

American Health & Accident Insurance Co., v. James V. Barry, Commissioner of Insurance. Supreme court, No. 22,894. Submitted, June 27, 1908.

Henry E. Chase, Deputy Attorney General, v. John W. Adams, Kalamazoo Circuit Judge. Supreme court, No. 22,899. Submitted in June, 1908.

CIRCUIT COURT.

Chase S. Osborn, Commissioner of Railroads, v. The Detroit Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co. Wayne circuit court. Argued and submitted, Nov. 29, 30, and Dec. 1, 1904.

3

SCHEDULE "C."

Statement of quo warranto cases, and certiorari to review quo warranto

cases.

QUO WARRANTO CASES DISPOSED OF.

SUPREME COURT.

Horace M. Oren, Attorney General, ex rel. Edward N. Breitung, v. The Iron Cliffs Co., Wm. G. Mather, Wm. G. Mather trustee for said Iron Cliffs Co., Fred A. Morse, James H. Hoyt, Edwin V. Hale and George A. Garretson. Supreme court, No. 18,562. Quo warranto, in re proposed re-incorporation of the Pioneer Iron Co. Information filed in January, 1901. These proceedings were abrogated by other proceedings in which the attorney general had no part and the information was formally dismissed by stipulation filed in July, 1907.

Chas. A. Blair, Attorney General, ex rel. City of Monroe v. The Monroe Traction Co., Toledo & Monroe Railway, and Detroit, Monroe & Toledo Short Line Railway. Supreme court. Information filed October 24, 1904, in Monroe circuit, files transferred to Wayne circuit, in December, 1904. Motion to quash denied, August 30, 1905. Proceedings to prevent respondents from using tracks and road north to Detroit and south to Toledo, and a short track to the Lake Pier, claiming a franchise was obtained by fraud and for a street railway, and the road used as a general railroad. There was judgment dismissing petition and petitioner brings error. Submitted October 10, 1907. Affirmed, March 17, 1908. (151 Mich. 473).

People ex rel. John E. Bird, Attorney General, v. Michigan Sanitarium and Benevolent Association, a corporation. Supreme court, No. 22,066. Certiorari to Calhoun circuit. Quo warranto proceedings to determine liability of respondent for taxes. There was an order overruling a demurrer to the information, and respondent brings error. Submitted, June 13, 1907. Affirmed, March 17, 1908. The opinion said (at p. 465) "The case stated in the information and admitted by the demurrer makes it necessary, if a defense is to be interposed at all, for the respondent to make answer. This it will be allowed to do within a reasonable time. The order of the court below is affirmed with costs." 151 Mich. 452, 465.

John E. Bird, Attorney General, ex rel. Arthur D. Stansell, v. Charles D. Aaron, et al. Supreme court, No. 22,198, error to Wayne circuit. Quo warranto to determine the validity of act 205, P. A., 1877, as

amended, under which the Detroit United Bank claimed to exist as a corporation. Information filed in November 1906. Order quashing information was filed by the circuit court, March 15, 1907, and the matter was taken to supreme court on error. Submitted, June 10, 1907. Motion to dismiss the writ of error was filed January 24, 1908, by the Attorney General, the bank having on January 4, 1908, reorganized and reincorporated as a banking corporation, under act 274, P. A. 1907, and "the question involved in this proceeding as to the legality or illegality of the incorporation, under said act No. 205, P. A. 1877, and the constitutionality of said act, becomes wholly immaterial and a determination of the question by this court entirely unnecessary, there being now no issue between the parties herein." Writ dismissed February 18, 1908 (No costs) (No opinion).

John E. Bird, Attorney General, v. Sim. J. Lewis. Supreme court. Quo warranto to try title to office of school commissioner of Otsego county. Submitted, January 7, Judgment for respondent, January 31, 1908. 114 N. W. 927; 151 Mich. 81.

CIRCUIT COURT.

People ex rel. John E. Bird, Atorney General, v. Michigan Sanitarium and Benevolent Association, a corporation. Calhoun circuit. Quo warranto. Demurrer was over-ruled by the supreme court, March 17, 1908, and respondent given permission to file answer (as shown in preceding part of this schedule).

PROBATE COURT.

Sim J. Lewis v. Rollin D. Bailey. Otsego Probate. Relator claimed to have been legally elected to the office of commissioner of schools but respondent acting under advice of the superintendent of public instruction refused to give up the office or the property belonging to it and relator commenced these proceedings under secs. 9843, et seq. C. L. 1897. Order to deliver books, etc., made by the judge of probate, July 6, 1907. (see quo warranto case of Attorney General v. Lewis, in this schedule.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

In re application of the Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Company for quo warranto to determine the validity of the incorporation of the Chicago & Kalamazoo Terminal Railroad Company, under the general railroad act of 1873. Argued and submitted before attorney general, June 3, 1908, and "application refused" on the same day.

QUO WARRANTO CASES PENDING.

SUPREME COURT.

The I'cople of the State of Michigan by the Attorney General, on the relation of George E. Ellis, Moses Taggart, and Samuel A. Freshney, v. John F. Calder, et al. Error to Kent circuit. Quo warranto to test right of respondents to act as a corporation under the name of Grand Rapids Hydraulic Co.

The People of the State of Michigan by John E. Bird, Attorney General vs. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company.

Quo warranto to inquire into the right of the respondent railway company to exercise franchises under a claimed special charter constituted of act of March 7th, 1834, and acts amendatory thereto. The information in quo warranto was filed on January 4, 1907. Motion to quash the information was made which was submitted June 11th and denied July 1st, 1907 (149 Michigan 122). Issue was then joined and an order entered on April 15th, 1908, appointing a commissioner before whom testimony to establish the issue of the case was taken.

The respondent's right to exercise the charter and privileges claimed depends largely upon whether it is the same corporation as the Detroit & Pontiac Railroad Company created by special act of March 7th, 1834, or whether it is a new corporation organized since the constitution of 1850 which reserves the right to alter, amend or repeal all acts of incorporation. The state's contention is that compliance with Act 96 of 1859 by the respondent and its predecessors in 1860 and in 1878 brought into existence a new corporation subject in all things to constitutional limitations then existing.

*A large amount of evidence tending to establish the issues of the case has been taken. This was largely obtained from the personal papers of H. H. Emmons, who was the Company's attorney from in the early fifties until 1867. The documents were found in the library of Mr. C. M. Burton of Detroit.

This case indirectly and the tax case (in Schedule "D") directly involve the right to tax the respondent and its property for all time to come. If it succeeds in maintaining its contention it will thus establish its right to indefinitely pay taxes at the rate fixed in its special charter of 1% per annum upon the amount of its capital stock paid in. If, on the other hand, the state succeeds in its contention the respondent will be required to pay taxes at the same rate as paid by other railway and corporate property, namely-at the average rate upon the true cash value of the property. The importance of theproceeding is indicated by the fact that under its special charter the respondent pays about $25,000 per year, while under the general law its assessment and taxes would be the followng amounts:

*NOTE-A motion to suppress this evidence on the ground that the Emmons documents were privileged communications between attorney and client is now (Oct. 1908) pending.