Revised Statutes of 1846
R.S. of 1846
801.107 Designation of jail of other county; officer to act.
Sec. 7.
If in any county there shall not be a jail or the jail erected shall become unfit or unsafe for the confinement of prisoners or shall be destroyed by fire or otherwise, the circuit judge of the circuit court or any circuit court commissioner for such county and in the upper peninsula the district judge of the district court for such county, shall by an instrument in writing, to be filed with the clerk of the county, designate the jail of some other county for the confinement of the prisoners of such county; which shall thereupon, to all intents and purposes, except as herein otherwise provided, become the jail of the county for which it shall have been so designated.
History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 148 ;-- Am. 1855, Act 25, Imd. Eff. Feb. 7, 1855 ;-- CL 1857, 5581 ;-- CL 1871, 7368 ;-- How. 8945 ;-- CL 1897, 10538 ;-- CL 1915, 14766 ;-- CL 1929, 17703 ;-- CL 1948, 801.107
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1980–2000 · leading case:
People v. Levandoski, 603 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
People v. Levandoski, 603 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “1131(2), and MCL 801.107; MSA 28.1757. The circuit court further concluded that incarceration would not violate defendant’s constitutional rights.”
In Re Muskegon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 469 N.W.2d 441 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “Defendant also justified his order under MCL 801.107; MSA 28.1757, which provides: If in any county there shall not be a jail, or the jail erected shall become unfit or unsafe for the confinement of prisoners, or shall be destroyed by fire or otherwise, the circuit judge of the…”
City of Grand Rapids v. Kent Cnty., 292 N.W.2d 475 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“4,957, supra, 321, where the Attorney General expressed his opinion that the cost of care and maintenance of prisoners of one county held in the jail of another county, MCL 801.107; MSA 28.1757, should be paid by the county which has committed such prisoners, and not by the…”
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.