Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 41 / R.S. of 1846
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.2 (2026)

Inhabitants of organized township as body corporate; powers and duties generally; acquisition of property for public purposes; suit, act, or proceeding; supervisor as agent.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Revised Statutes of 1846


R.S. of 1846


41.2 Inhabitants of organized township as body corporate; powers and duties generally; acquisition of property for public purposes; suit, act, or proceeding; supervisor as agent.

Sec. 2.

    (1) The inhabitants of an organized township are a body corporate and have, in addition to other powers that are conferred, all of the following powers and duties:

    (a) To sue and be sued and appoint necessary agents and attorneys for that purpose.

    (b) To make contracts necessary and convenient for the exercise of their corporate powers.

    (2) In addition to other powers that are conferred, the township board may investigate any matter that is under the jurisdiction of the township and the authority vested in the township or an officer under this act. The supervisor or the township board by majority consent of the township board members serving may serve upon a person a subpoena that has been authorized by a court of proper jurisdiction in the county in which the township is situated compelling the person to appear before the board or a committee of the board to be examined under oath or to produce a document or object for inspection or copying. If a person objects to or otherwise fails to comply with the subpoena served upon him or her, the supervisor or the township board by majority consent of the township board members may file in that court an action to enforce the notice. The court may issue an order requiring the person to appear to be examined or to produce a document or object for inspection or copying. Failure to obey the order of the court is punishable by the court as a contempt.

    (3) By resolution of the township board, a majority of the members serving may acquire property for public purposes by purchase, gift, condemnation, lease, construction, or otherwise and may convey or lease that property or part of that property not needed for public purposes.

    (4) A suit, act, or proceeding, by or against a township, in its corporate capacity, shall be in the name of the township. The supervisor of each township shall be the agent for his or her township for the transaction of legal business, by whom a suit may be brought and defended, and upon whom process against the township shall be served.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 16 ;-- CL 1857, 494 ;-- CL 1871, 637 ;-- How. 670 ;-- CL 1897, 2268 ;-- CL 1915, 2047 ;-- CL 1929, 957 ;-- CL 1948, 41.2 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 117, Imd. Eff. May 2, 1988 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 77, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1989 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 16, Imd. Eff. Mar. 16, 1992

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: Hess v. Cannon Twp., 696 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hess v. Cannon Twp., 696 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 22× “The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint because it concluded that Cannon Township had the authority pursuant to MCL 41.2 and that Cannon Township had a legitimate, compelling, and valid public policy interest in the litigation in which Grattan Township was involved.”
Waisanen v. Superior Twp., 854 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “(2) Actions brought by any municipal corporations for the recovery of the possession of any public highway, street, alley, or any other public ground are not subject to the periods of limitations.”
Bush v. Oscoda Area Schs., 250 N.W.2d 759 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “, MCLA 41.2; MSA 5.2 (townships), MCLA 45.3; MSA 5.”
Gen. Aviation, Inc. v. Capital Region Airport Auth., 569 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “Such a reading would have a Draconian effect on unrelated and long-established Michigan govemmentally related legislation.”
Spencer v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 445 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “Here, defendant contends because plaintiff received the remainder of his wages pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with a township and MCL 41.2; MSA 5.2 authorizes townships to make all contracts necessary and convenient for the exercise of their corporate powers, the…”
Exeter Twp. Clerk v. Exeter Twp. Bd., 310 N.W.2d 357 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “The following statutes, MCL 41.2; MSA 5.2, MCL 41.661; MSA 5.47 and MCL 691.”
United States v. France, 574 F. Supp. 2d 801 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “’ USSG § 41.2(a)(2).”); United States v. Perez-Velasquez, 67 Fed.”
Twp. of Grosse Ile v. GROSSE ILE BRIDGE Co., 722 N.W.2d 220 (Mich. 2006). “As a township, plaintiff has the statutory authority to acquire property by condemnation for public purposes and public service pursuant to MCL 41.2(3) and MCL 41.411(3). Here, plaintiff adopted a resolution statement of necessity, expressing several reasons for condemning…”
Allen v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 333 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “”_ *720 We need not decide here whether the commission may delegate its powers to a local government unit, because the rule involves no delegation of the commission’s powers.”
Huxtable v. Bd. of Trs. of Charter Twp. of Meridian, 302 N.W.2d 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “It is defendant’s contention that in general law townships all legislative power, unless expressly delegated, is retained by the inhabitants, MCL 41.2, 41.4; MSA 5.2, 5.4, but that in charter townships, all legislative authority is vested in the township board.”
Ln Real Est. LLC v. Kingdom Living Church (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “that “To date, LN has not complied with Lease Section 41.2.” * * * Request to Admit #25: [KLC] admits that its LETTER OF INTENT .”
Ln Real Est. LLC v. Kingdom Living Church (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “that “To date, LN has not complied with Lease Section 41.2.” * * * Request to Admit #25: [KLC] admits that its LETTER OF INTENT .”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.2(1)(b) — 2 cases
Hess v. Cannon Twp., 696 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint because it concluded that Cannon Township had the authority pursuant to MCL 41.2 and that Cannon Township had a legitimate, compelling, and valid public policy interest in the litigation in which Grattan Township was involved.”
Hess v. Cannon Twp., 706 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. 2005).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.2(3) — 2 cases
Hess v. Cannon Twp., 696 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint because it concluded that Cannon Township had the authority pursuant to MCL 41.2 and that Cannon Township had a legitimate, compelling, and valid public policy interest in the litigation in which Grattan Township was involved.”
Twp. of Grosse Ile v. GROSSE ILE BRIDGE Co., 722 N.W.2d 220 (Mich. 2006). “As a township, plaintiff has the statutory authority to acquire property by condemnation for public purposes and public service pursuant to MCL 41.2(3) and MCL 41.411(3). Here, plaintiff adopted a resolution statement of necessity, expressing several reasons for condemning…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.2(a)(2) — 1 case
United States v. France, 574 F. Supp. 2d 801 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “’ USSG § 41.2(a)(2).”); United States v. Perez-Velasquez, 67 Fed.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.2(l)(b) — 1 case
Hess v. Cannon Twp., 696 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint because it concluded that Cannon Township had the authority pursuant to MCL 41.2 and that Cannon Township had a legitimate, compelling, and valid public policy interest in the litigation in which Grattan Township was involved.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.