Ferle v. City of Lansing

• Citation: 155 N.W. 591,189 Mich. 501
• Decision Date: 22 December 1915
• Docket Number: No. 523.,523.
• Parties: FERLE v. CITY OF LANSING et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

189 Mich. 501
155 N.W. 591

FERLE
v.
CITY OF LANSING et al.

No. 523.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 22, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ingham County, in Chancery; Howard Wiest, Judge.

Suit by Jacob Ferle against the City of Lansing and others. From a decree for complainant, defendant Rikerd Lumber Company appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before BROOKE, C. J., and KUHN, MOORE, STONE, OSTRANDER, BIRD, STEERE, and PERSON, JJ.

[155 N.W. 591]

Warner, Raudabaugh & Person and C. W. & W. S. Foster, all of Lansing, for appellant Rikerd Lumber Co.

Jason E. Nichols, of Lansing, for appellee Ferle.

Joseph H. Dunnebacke, of Lansing, for appellee city of Lansing.

BROOKE, C. J.

The present charter of the city of Lansing, adopted by the electors in 1912, contains the following provision:

‘Sec. 53. No member of the city council shall, during the period for which he was elected, be elected or appointed to, or be competent to hold any office or position or receive any employment directly or indirectly connected with the government. No member of the city council nor any person holding any elective or appointive office under the city government shall be interested in any contract with the city, or be a bondsman or surety on any contract or bond given to the city. Any member of the city council or other officer violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars, or be imprisoned for not less than thirty days nor more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment within the discretion of the court. The conviction of any alderman or official under this section shall operate in itself to forfeit his office.’

This suit is brought to enjoin the payment of a bill of $140.62 for lumber sold and delivered to the city by the Rikerd Lumber Company, a domestic corporation. It is the theory of the bill of complaint that the sale of the lumber was in violation of the charter provision, inasmuch as Hiram W. Rikerd, a stockholder of the lumber company and its vice president and manager, was also, at the time of the sale, an officer of the city, namely, a member of its board of police and fire commissioners. The lumber was purchased for the city by its superintendent of public works, and the purchase was made of an employé of the lumber company without the personal knowledge of Mr. Rikerd, who was also unaware of its delivery to the city. The board of police and fire commissioners did not, nor did any of its...