Harrigan & Reid Co. v. Burton
Decision Date | 01 October 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 79.,79. |
Citation | 224 Mich. 564,195 N.W. 60 |
Parties | HARRIGAN & REID CO. v. BURTON et al. |
Court | Michigan 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.
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:
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-
Westervelt v. Natural Resources Commission
...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
...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
... ... 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.
... ... 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 ... ...