Hines v. City of Charlotte

Decision Date01 November 1888
Citation40 N.W. 333,72 Mich. 278
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Error to circuit court, Eaton county; FRANK A. HOOKER, Judge.

Action on the case, brought by Ermina L. Hines against the city of Charlotte. Defendant obtained judgment on demurrer to the declaration, and plaintiff brings error.


This is an action on the case, brought in the circuit court for the county of Eaton. The plaintiff claims in her declaration that the defendant, the city of Charlotte, "on March 29 1871, was duly authorized and empowered by its charger,-said charter being an act of the legislature of the state of Michigan, approved March 29, 1871,-among other things, by an action of the common council of said city, a majority of the members-elect concurring, to make all such by-laws and ordinances as it should deem necessary and proper to secure said city and the inhabitants thereof against injury by fire and to prescribe fire limits within said city of Charlotte and the said defendant, in pursuance of the power so granted by its charter as aforesaid, did on, to-wit, September 3 1873, by its common council, a majority of the members-elect concurring, at a regular meeting of said common council, duly make and pass an ordinance entitled 'An ordinance prescribing fire limits on blocks 23 and 24 in the city of Charlotte,' therein and thereby prohibiting the erection of any building without party or fire walls of brick or stone, and roof of metal, or slate, or composition, excepting only wooden buildings not more than eight feet square, and not to face upon any street, or less than thirty feet from the line thereof, within the limits in and by said ordinance prescribed; and placing adequate means in the hands of said city, and in the hands of its servants and officers, for the proper enforcement of the provisions thereof, and making it its absolute duty, through its servants and officers, to enforce the provisions thereof; which said ordinance was duly amended on, to-wit, May 6, 1881, and again, on, to-wit, May 7, 1883, said ordinance was duly amended so as to include within its provisions blocks 18, 23, 24, 31 and 32, in the said city, which said ordinance, so amended as last aforesaid, contained all the provisions above recited, and also made it the absolute duty of the fire-warden of said city, and each and every member of the common council thereof, ex officio, in case any person should erect or place, or cause to be erected or placed, any building or parts of a building, contrary to the provisions of said ordinance, to notify said parties forthwith to remove the same, and to enforce all the provisions of said ordinance; and said ordinance further provided that no person should erect any building or part of a building on said blocks 18, 23, 24, 31, and 32, in said city, until he should have filed with the recorder of said city complete plans and specifications of said building or part of a building so proposed to be placed or erected, and until he had obtained from said city recorder a certificate in writing that the common council of said city had approved of said plans and specifications; and before and at the time of the passing of said ordinance by the common council of the said city of Charlotte, on, to-wit, September 3, 1873, aforesaid, and before and at the time of the amendments to said ordinance, as aforesaid, so as to include within its provisions and operation blocks 18, 23, 24, 31, and 32, aforesaid, in said city, said plaintiff owned and occupied as a store, workshop, and dwelling-house a certain building, lawfully constructed and built on lot 13 on block...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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