Harrigan & Reid Co. v. Burton

Decision Date01 October 1923
Docket NumberNo. 79.,79.
Citation224 Mich. 564,195 N.W. 60
PartiesHARRIGAN & REID CO. v. BURTON et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Jos. A. Moynihan, Judge.

Bill by the Harrigan & Reid Company against Frank Burton and another. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.Walter Barlow, of Detroit (Clarence E. Wilcox, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, of Detroit, for appellee.

STEERE, J.

Plaintiff is a Michigan corporation extensively engaged, among other things, in the business of selling and installing, as heating contractor and engineer, heating systems and apparatus in dwellings in the city of Detroit. Defendant Burton is commissioner in charge of the department of buildings and safety engineering of the city of Detroit, and defendant Brozo is chief inspector of the heating division of said department.

Plaintiff filed this bill to restrain defendants from threatened enforcement against it of an ordinance of the city of Detroit entitled:

‘An ordinance to regulate the installation of heating and warming systems or apparatus in dwellings in the city of Detroit.’

The case was heard on bill and answer, under which the only issue raised and argued is whether the ordinance in question is void and unenforceable because unconstitutional. Upon the hearing the circuit court of Wayne county, in chancery, held the ordinance unconstitutional, because unreasonable, discriminatory, and, in certain particulars, arbitrary and oppressive.

The ordinance consists of 15 sections, the first being as follows:

‘No person, firm or corporation shall install or cause to be installed any heating or warming system or apparatus in dwellings in the city of Detroit without a contractor's license from the department of buildings and safety engineering and filing a bond in the sum of $1,000 to indemnify purchasers of heating ans warming systems or apparatus installed in dwellings in Detroit under this ordinance, if such systems or apparatus are found not to comply with the provisions of this ordinance and rules formulated under section 8.’

Section 2 provides that no installation shall be made without a permit from the department of buildings and safety engineering. Section 3 provides for such department accepting a deposit to cover anticipated permits, when application is made in writing by any contractor under the ordinance. Section 4 requires the department to provide application blanks on forms containing such information as it desires for public record, which blanks shall be considered a plan of the proposed installation, when containing a record of the number of rooms and general dimensions and character of the building in which the installation is to be made. By section 5 the corporation or person installing any heating systems or apparatus in dwellings in the city of Detroit is required to--

‘file with the department the manufacturer's number and a published rated capacity for heating or warming of the various types or sizes of apparatus, whether boilers for steam or hot water, or warm air furnaces.’

Section 6 requires the department to furnish all holders of contractor's licenses with application blanks, and to issue a permit within 48 hours after receipt of an application, if properly filled out. Sections 7 and 8 are as follows:

Sec. 7. Installation of heaing or warming systems or apparatus shall have a capacity to maintain a temperature of seventy degrees Fahrenheit in parlors, libraries, main halls, living rooms, dining rooms and bathrooms in which registers or radiators are placed (sun parlors excepted), and a temperature of sixty-five degrees Fahrenheit in sleeping apartments or kitchens in which registers or radiators are placed, and said internal temperature shall be possible of maintenance while out-door air is at zero Fahrenheit: Provided a suitable chimney flue is furnished and all doors, windows and the dwelling are reasonably well constructed: Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed so as to interfere with the right of an owner or his agent from entering into a written contract or agreement for any other specific temperature he may desire.

Sec. 8. Rules for the installation of heating and warming systems or apparatus shall be formulated by the board of rules and five representatives of contractors installing heating or warming systems or apparatus, in the city of Detroit. The rules and regulations formulated shall become effective when approved by the common council. The five representatives above mentioned shall be appointed by the mayor and with the board of rules shall form a joint board for the purpose of formulating the rules mentioned in this section. No rules formulated under this ordinance shall apply to the design of systems or apparatus.’

Section 9 requires reports to be made to the department by holders of licenses on blanks furnished to them, with a provision that the contractor's license may be revoked ‘for neglect to report installation or poor installation.’ Section 10 provides that no inspection shall be made of the heating of any dwelling, except upon written statement of the occupant or owner,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Westervelt v. Natural Resources Commission
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 20 Marzo 1978
    ...633, 44 L.Ed. 725; Darling v. St. Paul, 19 Minn. 389 (1872)." 211 Mich. 38, 43, 177 N.W. 967, 969.See also, Harrigan & Reid Co. v. Burton, 224 Mich. 564, 195 N.W. 60 (1923); G. F. Redmond & Co. v. Michigan Securities Commission, 222 Mich. 1, 192 N.W. 688 (1923); Postal v. Village of Grosse ......
  • Gora v. City of Ferndale
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 1 Abril 1998
    ...unless the contrary is shown by competent evidence, or appears on the face of the enactment." [Quoting Harrigan & Reid Co. v. Burton, 224 Mich. 564, 569, 195 N.W. 60 (1923).] One of the reasons underlying this presumption is that persons holding legislative office, such as members of the ci......
  • Village of St. Johnsbury v. Jacob Aron
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 7 Octubre 1930
    ... ... Board of ... Aldermen, 192 N.C. 348, 135 S.E. 50, 49 A.L.R. 755, 763; ... Harrigan & Reid Co. v. Burton, 224 Mich ... 564, 195 N.W. 60, 33 A.L.R. 142, 146; Crossman v ... City of ... ...
  • City of Newnan v. Atlanta Laundries, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 12 Enero 1932
    ... ... the defendants cite, as authority for their contention on ... this question, Harrigan & Reid Co. v. Burton, 224 ... Mich. 564, 195 N.W. 60, 33 A.L.R. 142, 145. In their brief ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT