Revised Statutes of 1846
R.S. of 1846
45.3 County; body corporate, purposes.
Sec. 3.
Each organized county shall be a body politic and corporate, for the following purposes, that is to say: To sue and be sued, to purchase and hold real and personal estate for the use of the county; to borrow money for the purpose of erecting and repairing county buildings, and for the building of bridges, to make all necessary contracts, and to do all other necessary acts in relation to the property and concerns of the county.
History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 13 ;-- CL 1857, 302 ;-- CL 1871, 433 ;-- How. 439 ;-- CL 1897, 2441 ;-- CL 1915, 2243 ;-- CL 1929, 1101 ;-- CL 1948, 45.3
Notes of Decisions
Hackel v. Macomb Cnty. Comm'n, 826 N.W.2d 753 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “MCL 45.3 states: Each organized county shall be a body politic and corporate, for the following purposes, that is to say: To sue and be sued, to purchase and hold real and personal estate for the use of the county; to borrow money for the purpose of erecting and repairing county…”
Lapeer Cnty. Abstract & Title Co. v. Lapeer Cnty. Register of Deeds, 691 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Further, defendant relies on MCL 45.3, which provides: Each organized county[ 6 ] shall be a body politic and corporate, for the following purposes, that is to say: To sue and be sued; to purchase and hold real and personal estate for the use of the county; to borrow money for…”
Bush v. Oscoda Area Schs., 250 N.W.2d 759 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “2 (townships), MCLA 45.3; MSA 5.283 (counties), MCLA 61.”
In re Certified Question From US Dist. Court, 622 N.W.2d 518 (Mich. 2001).
“§ 45.3; MSA 5.283, which of plaintiff's claims in this action, if any, would the attorney general have the authority to bring against defendants on plaintiff's behalf? (2) If the attorney general has the authority to bring any of plaintiff's claims against defendants on…”
Bailey v. Muskegon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 333 N.W.2d 144 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“MCL 45.3; MSA 5.283. Therefore, because the enabling statute does not prohibit a county from entering into a contract with a nonprofit agency, and because counties do have general authority to enter into contracts, the Muskegon County ordinance is not invalid solely because it…”
Wright v. Bartz, 62 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. 1954).
· cites it 2× “…conferred upon it by the Constitution and the statutes (Const 1908, art 8, §§ 1, 7; CL 1929, §§ 1101,1130 [CL 1948, §§45.3, 46.11 (Stat Ann §§ 5.283, 5.331)]). “Neither the Constitution nor statutes give authority to a county to expend public funds for the purpose of…”
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.