5 N.W. 1078 (Mich. 1880), Butler v. City of Detroit

Citation:5 N.W. 1078, 43 Mich. 552
Opinion Judge:CAMPBELL, J.
Party Name:BUTLER v. CITY OF DETROIT.
Attorney:[43 Mich. 553] Prentis & Fox, for complainant. F.A. Baker, City Counselor, for defendant.
Case Date:June 09, 1880
Court:Supreme Court of Michigan
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1078

5 N.W. 1078 (Mich. 1880)

43 Mich. 552

BUTLER

v.

CITY OF DETROIT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 9, 1880

Section 12 of the board of public works act of Detroit (3 Sp.Laws 1873, p. 180) is applicable to paving as well other public mprovements, and is not open to the objections that it is not within the title of the act, or that it unduly limits the power of the council. The council should not direct the invitation for bids for any improvement until after they have received the report and estimate of the board of public works thereon. A contract for paving certain streets provided that work should commence September 4th and be completed November 15th. October 6th, and before anything had been done towards its performance, the time for performance was extended to the August following. Held, that such attempted extension was ineffectual.

Appeal from Detroit.

[43 Mich. 553] Prentis & Fox, for complainant.

F.A. Baker, City Counselor, for defendant.

CAMPBELL, J.

The bill in this case was filed to restrain the sale of certain lots of complainant on Michigan avenue, in the city of Detroit, for an assessment for repaving that avenue. The case is so presented as to raise only three questions, and while it is claimed other grounds of illegality exist, we are not called on to consider them. For the purposes of the present suit, therefore, the parties assume that the common council had power to order the repaving, and has oyly failed to provide for it in a legal manner. The inquiry is narrowed very materially. The three objections relied on are--First, that the council took measures in advance of any proper reference to and report from the board of public works; second, that the contract was let before any assessment was provided for; and, third, that the contract had expired of its own original limitation, and before any work was done under it, and was extended before any work was done.

The course of procedure, as bearing on the first of these objections, was as follows: On the second of June, 1876, a resolution was passed directing the board of public works to prepare and submit the proper resolutions for repaving Michigan avenue from Woodward avenue to the west line of Trumbull avenue. On the twentieth day of June, 1876, the board made a report, which expressed no opinion except that if the street was repaved it should be done as far as Thirteen-and-a-half street, and which stated further that inasmuch as the resolution was imperative the board abstained from acting on various remonstrances, and returned them without recommendation. Resolutions were enclosed which provided for paving, in separate districts, from Woodward avenue to the

Page 1079

west line of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP