Mayor of Niles v. Muzzy
| Decision Date | 02 November 1875 |
| Citation | 33 Mich. 61 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The Mayor, etc., of Niles, v. Franklin Muzzy |
Submitted on Briefs October 22, 1875
Error to Berrien Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Edward Bacon, for plaintiffs in error.
W. J. Gilbert, for defendant in error.
Muzzy being an attorney and counselor at law and in chancery, and having been elected mayor of Niles, and in virtue of which office he was one of the common council, he was employed under a resolution of the common council to appear and defend the city in a suit in chancery brought against it by one Young in the Federal court at Detroit. In pursuance of such employment he appeared for the city in his professional character and rendered services which the court found to be worth one hundred dollars. The court below gave judgment in his favor for that sum with interest. Having rendered these valuable professional services, it is now objected that he ought not to be paid for them because he was mayor and councilman. There is no question open in regard to their worth to the city, or as to the necessity there was for them. Every such consideration is closed by the finding. Neither his duty as mayor, or as councilman, or as both, included any such service. He was no more required, in consequence of his official position, to employ his time and talents as a counselor at law in conducting a suit brought against the city, than he was to pay the debts of the city out of his own private funds. There may have been, and probably was, substantial reason for thinking his services in the case would be particularly useful to the city, and if such was the case, we see no cause for saying that the city was obliged to forego his professional assistance unless he would give it for nothing. When a case shall be presented showing fraudulent or collusive conduct on the part of one so situated, or between one so situated and other municipal officials, there will be room for different considerations. The finding fairly excludes the existence of any thing of that kind here, and shows that his specific services were sought by the city and given by him; that they were meritorious and actually worth to the city when rendered the sum mentioned.
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Bradley County Road Improvement Districts 1 and 2
...483; 33 F. 440; 44 Ark. 74; 106 Ark. 568; Greenwood on Public Policy, 7; 41 P. 133; 45 N.W. 242; 60 Ga. 222; 109 Cal. 140; 26 Neb. 149; 33 Mich. 61. C. Clary and R. W. Wilson, for appellee. Appellant is barred from any recovery at all, because his claims are either founded upon the contract......
-
City of Ensley v. J.E. Hollingsworth & Co.
... 54 So. 95 170 Ala. 396 MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF ENSLEY v. J. E. HOLLINGSWORTH & CO. Supreme Court of Alabama April 20, 1909 ... Albright v. Town Council of Chester, 9 Rich. Law (S ... C.) 399, and Niles v. Muzzy, 33 Mich. 61, 20 ... Am. Rep. 670. We think, however, the facts in the ... ...
-
Sanborn v. Pentland
... ... 70; Macon v. Huff, 60 Ga. 221; Frick v ... Brinkley, 61 Ark. 397, 33 S.W. 527; Niles v ... Muzzy, 33 Mich. 61, 20 Am. Rep. 670; Currie v ... School District No. 26, 35 Minn. 163, ... ...
-
Kollock v. Dodge
...for his city under a special contract, because he owed no official duty to the municipality to perform services of that nature. Niles v. Muzzy, 33 Mich. 61. In Love v. Baehr, 47 Cal. 364, it was held that the official duties of an officer are limited by the nature of his office, and that if......