Gale v. Village of Kalamazoo
Citation | 23 Mich. 344 |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Decision Date | 03 October 1871 |
Parties | George H. Gale v. The Village of Kalamazoo |
Heard July 6, 1871 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Error to Kalamazoo circuit.
This was an action brought by George H. Gale against the village of Kalamazoo, for a breach of contract in refusing to exercise the legislative powers of the village to carry out an agreement, of which the following is a copy, viz:
This contract was executed by the plaintiff personally, and on behalf of the village by the president and trustees of the village. The averments of the declaration are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The defendant demurred to the declaration, alleging the following causes of demurrer, viz: 1. That it appears in and by said declaration that the contract therein set out was not executed by said defendant, but by certain individuals, whose names are thereto attached. 2. That said defendant had no legal power to execute such a contract as is therein set forth. 3. That it does not appear, in and by said declaration, that said contract therein set forth was ever authorized, or entered into, or executed by the president and trustees of said village of Kalamazoo, or that said president and trustees ever accepted said market-house, or assumed the control thereof. 4. That it does not appear, in, and by, said declaration, that said by-laws therein set forth, or any of them, were of any valid or binding force. 5. That said by-laws, even if valid, would not give the plaintiff any grounds for a private or civil action against the defendant.
This demurrer was sustained, and judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff brings the cause to this court by writ of error.
Judgment of the court affirmed.
Edwards & Sherwood, H. F. Severens and D. Darwin Hughes, for plaintiff in error.
J. W. Breese, C.I. Walker, G. V. N. Lothrop and Dwight May, for defendant in error.
Christiancy, J., did not sit in this case.
The objection made by the defendant, that the contract sued upon appears to be the contract of the president and trustees of the village of Kalamazoo, as individuals, instead of the contract of the village itself, does not appear to us well founded. The averment in the declaration, is that "the said plaintiff and the said defendant entered into their certain contract or agreement in writing, which said contract or agreement, sealed by the said plaintiff, and by the said defendant, by its agents and servants, the president and trustees of the village of Kalamazoo, executing the same and having full power and authority so to do, and to bind the defendant thereby, is in the words and figures," which are given in full. This averment is sufficient to embrace whatever was essential to confer upon the president and trustees the proper authority to make the contract on behalf of the village; and it must be taken to be the contract of the corporation, unless the instrument as thus set out shows upon its face that it is the contract of the officers and not of the corporation. We think it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
...29 L. Ed. 525];Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51 ;City of Chicago v. Rumpff, 45 Ill. 90 ;Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 ;Gale v. Kalamazoo, 23 Mich. 344, 9 Am. Rep. 80;Atlantic City Waterworks v. Atlantic, 39 N. J. Eq. 367, 10 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 59; Norwich Gaslight Co. v. Norwich City......
-
State ex rel. County Attorney & Fullerton v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
...L.Ed. 137); City of Chicago v. Rumpff, 45 Ill. 90 (92 Am. Dec. 196); Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (21 L.Ed. 394); Gale v. Kalamazoo, 23 Mich. 344 (9 Am. Rep. 80); Atlantic City Waterworks v. Atlantic, 39 N.J.Eq. (10 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 59); Norwich Gaslight Co. v. Norwich City Gas......
-
Woodmansee v. Kansas City
... ... 885; Caldwell v ... Alton, 33 Ill. 416; Spaulding v. City of ... Lowell, 23 Pick. 71; Gale v. Kalamazoo, 23 ... Mich. 344; Taggart v. Detroit, 71 Mich. 92, 38 N.W ... 714; Smith v ... ...
-
Grand Rapids, E.L. & P. Co. v. Grand Rapids, E.E.L. & F.G. Co.
...and private matters it alone is concerned, and not the state. Fund Soc. v. Philadelphia, 31 Pa.St. 183; 1 Dill.Mun.Corp. § 27; Gale v. Kalamazoo, 23 Mich. 351; People Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 103; Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 359; Bailey v. Mayor, 3 Hill, 539; Detroit v. Corey, 9 Mich. 184; People v.......