Callam v. City of Saginaw

• Decision Date: 17 January 1883
• Citation: 14 N.W. 677,50 Mich. 7
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CALLAM v. CITY OF SAGINAW.

14 N.W. 677

50 Mich. 7

CALLAM v. CITY OF SAGINAW.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 17, 1883

A city cannot be compelled by the legislature to bear the whole expense of county buildings; public burdens must be equitably apportioned. But if the constitution does not forbid and the legislature authorizes such action, it is for the city to determine whether it will of itself establish improvements that are not exclusively for its own purposes, and which will accommodate to some extent the larger bodies with which it is identified.

A city council, if authorized by statute, can take action involving the expenditure of public money, without the approval of any other body, whether of tax-payers alone or of electors generally; and while it is proper and legal to provide that it may do so with the approval of the tax-payers, such a provision is not required by the constitution.

No constitutional objection to legislation authorizing a city to take upon itself alone the entire expense of a county building can be based on the probability that such action may effect the subsequent removal of the county seat.

Under the constitution a board of supervisors cannot raise more than $1,000 annually for constructing or repairing public buildings. Local act 7 of 1881, authorizing the city of Saginaw to erect a county building and in providing that in case of the removal of the county seat the county should repay the amount expended, is defective.

Appeal from Saginaw.

D.P Foote and Hanchell & Stark, for defendant.

CAMPBELL J.

Complainant a tax-payer of the city of Saginaw, filed his bill to restrain the issue of bonds and other action, providing for the erection, at the sole expense of Saginaw city, of the court house for Saginaw county. The bill relies on several grounds of illegality, which are chiefly the want of power to build for other than city purposes, the vote of tax-payers instead of electors generally to sanction the debt, and the lack of power in the board of supervisors to make the contract with the city for the building. Some other questions arise also. The bill was dismissed and complainant appeals. The statute under which the controversy arises is "An act to authorize the city of Saginaw to raise money for building a court-house therein for the county of Sagnaw, to authorize said county and city to contract with each other therefor," approved March 14, 1882. Laws 1882, Local Acts, 7.

This statute allows the city to borrow $100,000 and erect a court-house, if a majority of property-holding tax-payers so vote. Bonds were thereupon to be issued and negotiated, and the money expended in accordance with a contract to be agreed on between the city and county, with such agreements as should protect the rights and interests of the city and county. In case the county seat should be removed, the county was required to pay to the city the amount, with interest, as should be specified, and the parties were authorized to provide for sale or other disposition in favor of the county in case of removal. In case of removal, the county was to refund to the city, with interest, all of the expenditure, and the amount was to be raised by taxation--the city also raising money to pay the bonds in the same way.

We do not think there is anything in the body of the act foreign to the purpose indicated by the title. The provisions appear to be harmonious and consistent. Some of the objections go to the power of the legislature to authorize a city to make such an improvement as the one in question. These, if well founded, would render the others unimportant. If not well founded, the other objections, if they exist, may be obviated by further legislation. It is claimed, and is true, that the legislature cannot compel a city to bear the whole expense of county buildings. Public burdens must be apportioned in some equitable way; and in general, county burdens are raised by uniform taxes on property. This principle is not questioned by either party, and we need not discuss it. Neither need we discuss the power to discriminate between favored and unfavored localities by compulsory taxes. The present law lays no compulsion on the city.

The question arises, therefore, whether a city can be authorized to raise by corporate funds and taxes the entire money required for a court-house for the county. The point is fairly presented, as the proposed uses are not joint, but separate, and in cases of removal the county is to refund the entire expenses.

No precedents have been found precisely analogous. The power is rested by the defense on the validity of city expenditures for purposes of a public character, which make a city more desirable as a residence, promote its improvement...