Elliott v. Kalkaska County Sup'rs

• Decision Date: 18 November 1885
• Citation: 25 N.W. 461,58 Mich. 452
• Parties: ELLIOTT v. KALKASKA SUP'RS. PAQUETTE v. SAME. TUNCHALL v. SAME.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

25 N.W. 461

58 Mich. 452

ELLIOTT v. KALKASKA SUP'RS.

PAQUETTE v. SAME.

TUNCHALL v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 18, 1885

Mandamus.

CAMPBELL J.

Each of these relators presented claims, allowed by the proper board of health, for services and other dues incurred under their duty to take measures to prevent the spread of small-pox. The supervisors allowed more or less of the accounts, but refused to allow the rest. In their answers they present various supposed excuses for the disallowance. None of them are such as they could lawfully rely upon. Mr. Elliott's claim is for services as nurse in the pest-house, at four dollars a day,--allowed by the supervisors at two dollars. There is a showing made, but contradicted, that the board of supervisors desired to have claimant given a fair chance for a full hearing. The objections which are shadowed forth are that some of the patients were probably able to pay for their own necessities, and that the charge was exorbitant. There is nothing whatever in the return to indicate that they had any evidence of such pecuniary ability, or that the charges were excessive. Instead of having an open and proper hearing in relator's presence and where he could be represented, the return shows they sent out a committee to make such private explorations as they saw fit, who reported the views of some large tax-payers on the subject. It is not remarkable that tax-payers should be desirous of evading county charges; but it would be contrary to good sense, as well as law, to allow a public body having legal responsibilities to attempt to shift them off by resting on the advice or wishes of those who have no such duties.

In this case it could make no difference what patients were in the pesthouse. Relator Elliot was employed to act as a nurse there, and it in no way concerned him what was the pecuniary standing of its inmates. The board of health have the power and responsibility of providing such a house and nurses to attend it. It was held in Rae v. Flint, 51 Mich 526, S.C. 16 N.W. 887, that the public is primarily responsible for such expenditures, and that it would be contrary to public policy to endanger the public health by making it impracticable to employ help who would not be sure of their pay. The exigency of a pestilence will not wait for the convenience of parties, and measures must be prompt and effectual. The board of health must have power to...