Attorney General v. Hanchett
| Decision Date | 13 January 1880 |
| Citation | 42 Mich. 436,4 N.W. 182 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DERESTES H. HANCHETT and others. |
Before any corporation can be organized under section 3355 Comp.Laws, for supplying a city or town with water-works, it is necessary that the municipality pass a resolution declaring in favor of the expediency of the erection of the works, and the inexpediency of the municipality erecting them, and the necessity of this action cannot be waived by the subsequent action or ratification of the municipality.
Motion for judgment of ouster, and for judgment of not guilty in favor of certain defendants.
An information having been filed in this court against respondents to compel them to show by what right they assumed to exercise corporate franchises under the name of the Niles Water-Works Company, those of them who did not disclaim or deny the assumption justified under an alleged organization in compliance with chapter 128 of the Compiled Laws of 1871 being a statute approved April 3, 1869, entitled "An act to authorize the formation of companies for the introduction of water into towns, cities and villages in the state of Michigan." Issue having been joined, the cause was sent down for trial to the Berrien circuit, and a verdict rendered against the contesting respondents, upon which David Bacon alleges exceptions. The attorney general moves for judgment, and Bacon resists the motion and seeks a new trial.
On the trial articles of association were produced which were properly filed and regular in form except as to the signatures. In offering them respondent offered in addition to prove all the other facts alleged in his plea. Objection was made on two grounds, which were--First, the informality of the document; and, second, a failure to show any such action by the corporate authorities of Niles as was required in the first section of the statute before any corporation like that set up by respondents could be organized. The court excluded the evidence on these grounds.
It is not averred in the plea, nor is it now claimed, that any such action was had. But it is insisted that if necessary to have the action of the municipality a subsequent recognition was had by dealing with the corporation as an existing body, and this is claimed to have cured any possible defect.
The statute in question declares that "whenever the common council of any city or incorporated village, or the municipality authority of any town, in this state shall, by resolution, declare that it is expedient to have constructed works for the purpose of supplying such city, village or town, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial