City of Detroit v. Redfield

• Decision Date: 28 October 1869
• Citation: 19 Mich. 376
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: The City of Detroit v. Alexander H. Redfield

19 Mich. 376

The City of Detroit v. Alexander H. Redfield

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 28, 1869

Heard October 23, 1869 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Error to Wayne Circuit.

Redfield the plaintiff below, brought an action of assumpsit against the City of Detroit, for services rendered as the agent of the City, in receiving certain bounty bonds from the Treasurer of Wayne County, issued under the act of February 4, 1865, entitled "An act to provide for the payment of bounties to volunteers in the military and naval service of the United States" (Laws of 1865, p. 29), and for performing the duties required by the act. The defense was,--that being Comptroller of the City, he was entitled to no further compensation than his salary as such officer. From the bill of exceptions settled on the trial it appears that:

It was admitted that the plaintiff was Comptroller of the city of Detroit, from March 30th, 1864, to January 1st, 1868.

The plaintiff introduced evidence, showing that the plaintiff, in pursuance of resolutions of the Common Council of the city of Detroit, directing and authorizing the Comptroller, as agent of the city of Detroit, so to do, had prepared, signed, safely kept and accounted for the bonds of the county of Wayne, delivered to the defendant, called soldiers' bounty bonds, issued under act 27 of the session laws of the State of Michigan of 1865, to the amount of one hundred and fifty-nine thousand dollars.

Also, that in pursuance of like resolutions of the Common Council, plaintiff had negotiated $ 70,000 of such bonds for cash, and accounted for the proceeds.

Also, that in pursuance of like resolutions of said Common Council, plaintiff had received, safely kept, and paid out for the defendant in bounties, to volunteers in the military and naval service of the United States, $ 59,260 of the money so received for such bonds, and accounted for the same.

Also, that the plaintiff in pursuance of like resolutions of the Common Council, had safely kept and paid out as bounties to volunteers in said service, $ 89,000 of said county bonds, issued as above.

Also, that the plaintiff, in pursuance of resolutions of said Common Council, directing and requiring the Comptroller as agent of the city of Detroit, so to do, and under the provisions and requirements of said act 27 of the Legislature of 1865, gave bonds in the sum of $ 40,000 as such agent, and independent of his bond as Comptroller, with good security, as required by said act, and received from the Treasurer of Wayne county the sum of $ 20,000 in bonds of said county, and safely kept and paid out the same to volunteers as aforesaid, and accounted for the same.

The plaintiff also showed that the services in relation to these bounties were not merely of a ministerial character, but that the plaintiff was required to determine upon proper papers, who were entitled to bounties, and to exercise his judgment and discretion in the matter in hundreds of cases, thus assuming and exercising extraordinary responsibilities for himself and his sureties.

The plaintiff also proved that the regular office hours of the Comptroller, as fixed by the Common Council of Detroit, were from 9 A. M. to 12 M., and from 2 to 4 P. M., and that to perform the extra services imposed by said act of the Legislature and resolutions of the Common Council aforesaid, a large amount of extra labor, and at least from four to seven hours a day, was imposed, which could not be performed in office hours as above prescribed, in the performance of which labor the health of the plaintiff was broken down and ruined.

Thereupon the counsel for the defendant requested the Court to charge the jury: "That the Comptroller being an officer, paid an annual salary, he cannot receive extra pay for any services performed by him as Comptroller, prescribed by the Common Council, relating to the debts and finances of the city."

In reference to which request, the Court charged the jury as follows: "That is true, gentlemen, that he cannot receive compensation for duties performed as Comptroller, but the question in this case is, whether these duties were outside of that. Whether these duties performed by the plaintiff in selling these bonds, receiving the money and paying it out, and receiving the bonds from the county, whether that is outside of the official duties required, or that can be required by the Common Council of the Comptroller, and for the purposes of this suit, I charge you that they are outside of those duties."

To which charge the defendant by its counsel excepted, and after the charge aforesaid, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $ 800 damages.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

J. P. Whittemore, for plaintiff in error.

I. There are only two modes known to the charter, by or through which the city can become liable to pay for work or services in excess of the sum of $ 200; one is to pay the salaries of city officers; the other, by advertising and letting to the lowest bidder.--City Charter of 1857, Chap. 8, §§ 12, 17, 18, 19; Chap. 5, § 103. Sub. 1.

II. No assumpsit can be implied to pay an officer of the city any sum beyond his salary, for any service imposed upon such officer.--See Charter, Chap. 4, § 8-20; Chap. 5, § 22 sub. 1; Baker v. City of Utica, 19 N.Y. 326; 49 Penn. State, 118; Wendell v. City of Brooklyn, 29 Barb. 204; Charter, Sec. 103. Sub. 1.

III. No service was imposed upon Redfield, the individual. The service and duty was imposed upon the Comptroller, the officer of the city, to act as agent of the city under the law. The charge of the Circuit Judge was that Redfield, the individual, was entitled to recover for this service, beyond his salary as an officer of the city; and that the Council could not impose this duty upon him as Comptroller. Hence, that the law implied an assumpsit to pay beyond the salary. This is clearly erroneous, as before, shown.

L. Bishop, for defendant in error, cites:

Smith Com. 491-93; Atty. Gen. v. State Bank, Harr. Ch. 315; Sibley v. Smith, 2 Mich. 486; Mather v. Tichnor, 13 Mich. 44.

OPINION

Christiancy, J.

The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the bill of exceptions. And the first question for our determination is, whether the services performed by the plaintiff came within his official duties as Comptroller of the city, or were performed by him in that capacity. If properly a part of his official duties as Comptroller, either when he took the office or afterward imposed, his salary was the only compensation to which he can look, however inadequate.--People v. Supervisors, 1 Hill 362; Andrews v. United States, 2 Story's C. C. R. 202; Bussier v. Pray, 7 S. & R. 447; Evans v. City of Trenton, 4 Zab. (N. J.), 764.

It is admitted these services did not come within the duties of his office as prescribed by the charter, or by any ordinance or resolution of the Counsel...