PROHIBITION CASES, IN SUPREME COURT, DISPOSED OF UP TO JUNE 30, 1902. AUGUSTUS C. STELLWAGEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER MOROSS, v. EDGER O. DURFEE, PROBATE JUDGE OF WAYNE COUNTY. Supreme Court. Certiorari to Circuit Court. Wayne County. Proceeding to review an order dismissing an appeal for writ of prohibition to Edgar O. Durfee, Probate Judge. (See 1901 report, pages 32, 33.) Submitted Nov. 21, 1901. Affirmed March 26, 1901. (89 N. W. 728; 8 D. L. N. 1204.) EDWIN A. WILDEY, COMMISSIONER OF STATE LAND OFFICE, v. PERRY F. POWERS, AUDITOR GENERAL. Supreme Court. Application for writ of prohibition to prohibit the Auditor General from canceling certain tax deeds, issued under the homestead provision of the tax law. Submitted Feb. 11, 1901. Writ granted June 24, 1902. (91 N. W. 153; 9 D. L. N. 249.) ASSUMPSIT CASES, IN CIRCUIT COURTS, PENDING JUNE 30, 1902. The People vs. Charles L. Coffin. Assumpsit. Wayne County. Assumpsit. Wayne County. Assumpsit. Wayne County. Assumpsit. Wayne County. Assumpsit. Wayne County. Assumpsit. Wayne County. Daniel McCoy, Treasurer of the State of Michigan vs. Frank C. Pingree, Frank C. Andrews, Homer McGraw, Fred S. Osborne, Ward L. Andrus, Joseph Schrage and Henry R. Andrews. Assumpsit. Wayne County. George A. Loud, Henry M. Loud, Edward F. Loud, co-partners, doing business under firm name of H. M. Loud's Sons v. Edwin A. Wildey, Commissioner of State Land Office, Perry F. Powers, Auditor General, Peter E. Shien, State Trespass Agent and George F. Russell, State Trespass Agent. Assumpsit. Iosco County. George A. Loud, Henry M. Loud and Edward F. Loud, co-partners, doing business under firm name of H. M. Loud's Sons v. Edwin A. Wildey, Peter Shien and George F. Russell. Assumpsit. Iosco County. EJECTMENT CASES, IN CIRCUIT COURT, DISPOSED OF UP TO JUNE 30, 1902. EMELINE M. GRANT v. CHARLES L. FRENCH. Circuit Court. Bay County. Ejectment. Ejectment proceedings against a homesteader. Case settled by parties and stipulation of discontinuance filed August 28, 1901. EJECTMENT CASES, IN CIRCUIT COURTS, PENDING JUNE 30, 1902. Jane A. Sheldon vs. John D. Dingman. Arenac County. George E. Ranney vs. Earl Griffis. Oceana County. Charles B. Williams et al vs. Anson Love, and Roscoe D. Dix, Auditor General. Alpena County. Andrew C. Maxwell vs. John LaMie. Arenac County. PROHIBITION CASES, IN CIRCUIT COURTS, DISPOSED OF UP TO JUNE 30, 1902. THE PEOPLE EX REL. HORACE M. OREN, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS AND LEO A. CARO, CITY COMPTROLLER. Circuit Court. Kent County. Application for writ of prohibition by the Attorney General to prohibit and restrain the Common Council of Grand Rapids and Leo A. Caro the City Comptroller of said city, from allowing or paying or issuing orders to any alderman of said city, for the making or procuring to be made of jury lists, physicians' lists, or dog list. Submitted. Writ issued September 11, 1901. REPLEVIN CASES, IN CIRCUIT COURTS, PENDING JUNE 30, 1902. William C. Sterling v. Menzo Swart, Arenac County. TRESPASS CASES, IN CIRCUIT COURTS, DISPOSED OF UP TO JUNE 30, 1902. JOHN NEAL v. GRANT M. MORSE AND THEODORE TRUDELL, GAME WARDENS. Circuit Court. Bay County. Action for damages for the destruction of fish nets. Judgment rendered for plaintiff. Case removed to Supreme Court on writ of error. TRESPASS CASES, IN CIRCUIT COURTS, PENDING JUNE 30, 1902. People of State of Michigan vs. George B. Holmes and John Nicholson, co-partners. Alpena County. APPEALS UNDER INHERITANCE TAX LAW (ACT 188 PUBLIC ACTS 1899), DISPOSED OF UP TO JUNE 30, 1902. In the matter of estate of Nicholas Larzalier (deceased). Macomb County. Claim of Appeal filed July 5, 1901. Tax in dispute paid by the estate. In the matter of the estate of Horace Richmond (deceased). Clinton County. Claim of appeal filed Nov. 26, 1901. Settled April 28, 1902. APPEALS UNDER INHERITANCE TAX LAW (ACT 188 PUBLIC ACTS, 1899), IN CIRCUIT COURTS, PENDING JUNE 30, 1902. In the matter of the estate of John A. Thorp, deceased. County. St. Joseph In the matter of estate of Julia A. Edson. Wayne County. SCHEDULE G. REPORT OF COLLECTION OF MICHIGAN'S SPANISH WAR CLAIM AND CIVIL WAR INTEREST CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. Hon. Horace M. Oren, Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan: My Dear Sir-In accordance with your request I submit herewith report of collection of Michigan's Spanish War claim and Civil War interest claim against the United States, as follows: SPANISH WAR CLAIM. In my last report to you covering the period from March 7, 1901 to July 1, 1901, I explained the nature and condition of the Spanish war claim somewhat in detail. In that report the amounts uncollected and not settled by the accounting officials of the Treasury Department were given as follows: Second installment $81,494 46 12,433 98 $93,928 44 This report covers the period from July 1, 1901 to July 1, 1902. During that time the second installment has been entirely settled and the third installment nearly so. No payments were made during the year upon the third installment, but my information is that it has been passed upon by the examiner and that the reviewer has nearly finished his work. I expect a final adjustment by the Treasury Department in the course of a few days. The second installment has been entirely settled and the sum of $25,859.59 has been collected-the balance having been disallowed. The balance of this installment was disallowed for the reason that the expenses were incurred by the State for troops after they were mustered into the United States service and without authority from the war department. The allowances on the second installment were made upon the following dates and in the following amounts: December 19, 1901.. June 9, 1902... Total amount .. $24,045 29 $25,859 59 The following is a statement showing for what expenditures the above payments were made: Naval Reserves, clothing and equipment.. Miscellaneous Total United $15,124 02 7,174 31 1,746 96 1,814 30 $25,859 59 All that remains of the Spanish war claim to be settled is the third installment covering "Transportation" and amounting to $12,433,98. The total amount collected by me to date is $377,342.58. CIVIL WAR INTEREST CLAIM. On July 1, 1861 the State issued $1,249,400 of bonds, bearing interest at 7 per cent per annum, payable semi-annually. The issue was authorized by an act of the Legislature passed at an extra session on May 10, 1861. The bonds were redeemable at the "pleasure of the State" at any time within, or at the expiration of 25 years from January 1, 1861. The proceeds from the sale of these bonds were used to organize, and equip Michigan's volunteer regiments for service in the War of the Rebellion. Congress provided by an act approved July 27, 1861, and joint resolution approved March 8, 1862 for the reimbursement of the states of expenses incurred by them in aiding the United States in suppressing the insurrection. Michigan presented claims amounting to $1,203,768.32 and was allowed and paid $849,277.43. Among the items disallowed was interest paid by the State on the above mentioned bonds to August 20, 1866, and also loss suffered by discount upon the sale of the bonds, all of which amounted to $320,488.32. I have been unable to ascertain why interest only to August 20, 1866 was presented, instead of the entire amount of interest paid out by the State. Subsequently the United States Supreme Court in the case of the State of New York decided that interest upon war loan bonds should be reimbursed to the states by the United States. It was found, however, that Michigan's claim having been once disallowed could not, under the practice of the Treasury Department, be reopened and allowed under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Co-operating with several other states we succeeded in having an act passed by Congress on February 14, 1902, reopening our claim, in common with those of other states, and authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to examine and allow it. I assume that in this report you merely wish the essential facts and I will not, therefore, describe in detail the steps which it was necessary for us to take in order to secure the enactment of the enabling act by Congress to reopen the claim in the Treasury Department, and the nature and amount of proof which we found it necessary to collect and present 6 |