James Gardner v. People of the State of Michigan
Decision Date | 27 November 1905 |
Docket Number | No. 62,62 |
Citation | 26 S.Ct. 106,50 L.Ed. 212,199 U.S. 325 |
Parties | JAMES GARDNER, Plff. in Err. , v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Fred A. Baker for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. T. E. Tarsney, John B. Corliss, and Corliss, Leete, & Joslyn for defendant in error.
This appeal raises for consideration the question whether a certain ordinance of the city of Detroit, relating to the collection and disposition of garbage within that city, is repugnant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
By the ordinance in question it was made the duty of the occupant or occupants of every dwelling house or other building in the city of Detroit to provide a suitable and water-tight box or other vessel of a convenient size to be handled by the garbage collector, in which such occupant or occupants should cause to be placed or deposited 'all offal, garbage, and refuse animal and vegetable matter of the premises.' Such occupants were required to keep the box or other vessel in the alley in rear of their premises, or at a place on the premises most accessible to the person collecting the garbage and offal; and it was made unlawful to put anything but refuse animal and vegetable matter in the vessel used for garbage and offal. If the vessel was placed in the alley, it must be provided with a tight cover, properly hinged, and located next to the lot line, from which it should not project more than two feet into the alley. § 1.
The remaining sections of the ordinance are in these words:
'§ 2. The word 'garbage' shall be held to include every refuse accumulation of animal, fruit, or vegetable matter that attends the preparation, use, cooking, dealing in or storing of meat, fish, fowl, food, fruit, or vegetables, including dead animals and condemned foods found within the city limits. All garbage shall be collected in water-tight closed metal boxes, and such boxes shall be purified as often as the health officer may direct, and shall have painted thereon the word 'Garbage.'
Revised Ordinances of 1895, as amended in 1901.
The city of Detroit rests the authority of its council to pass this ordinance upon its charter, which contains the following provisions: 'The council shall have power to provide for the preservation of the general health of the inhabitants of the city, and to make regulations to secure the same; . . . to abate or remove any nuisance; . . . to prohibit and prevent any person from having on his premises any substance or thing that is unwholesome or nauseous; and to authorize the removal thereof; . . . The common council is also empowered to enact and provide, by appropriate ordinance, for the manner of collecting, transporting, conveying, and handling of garbage and all animal and vegetable matter and refuse in said city; . . . and to require all persons in said city to dispose of the same in the manner provided by said common council in said ordinance for the removal and destruction thereof, and to impose and enforce appropriate penalties for any violation of said ordinance.' Charter of the city, chap. 7, § 43, par. 130.
By additional legislation in 1889 the common council was given the power 'to advertise for proposals, and contract for the removal, disposition, and destruction of garbage and all animal and vegetable refuse for a term of years.'
In 1901 the city and the Detroit Sanitary Works, a corporation of Michigan, entered into a written agreement, by which the latter undertook to collect, remove, and dispose of all garbage and dead animals within the limits of the city of Detroit for the term of ten consecutive fiscal years, beginning July 1st, 1901. In consideration of the faithful performance of the conditions and specifications specified in the agreement, the city agreed to pay to the sanitary company the sum of $515,000, in equal monthly instalments of $4,291.66 2/3 during the continuance of the contract.
The agreement between the city and the sanitary works contained, among others, the following provisions: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In Re Seven Barrels of Wine, in Re
... ... rights secured by the state Constitution ... While ... the amendment to ... by the Fourteenth Amendment. Eberle v. People of State of ... Michigan, 232 U.S. 700, 706, 34 S.Ct ... 306, 26 S.Ct. 100, 50 ... L.Ed. 204; Gardner v. Michigan, 199 U.S. 325, 26 ... S.Ct. 106, 50 L.Ed ... ...
-
Oregon Waste Sys.,Inc. v. Dep't of Envir. Quality of Oregon
...of San Francisco was not void as taking the property of householders for public use without compensation); and Gardner v. Michigan, 199 U.S. 325, 26 S.Ct. 106, 50 L.Ed. 212 (1905) (holding that property rights of individuals must be subordinated to the general good and if the owner of garba......
-
Larabee v. Dolley
... 175 F. 365 LARABEE v. DOLLEY, State Bank Com'r, et al. ASSARIA STATE BANK, OF ASSARIA, KAN., ... possessed by the people of the state in their collective ... capacity, except that ... 306, 26 Sup.Ct. 100, 50 ... L.Ed. 204; Gardner v. Michigan, 199 U.S. 325, 26 ... Sup.Ct. 106, 50 L.Ed ... ...
-
State v. Armour & Co.
...A. (N. S.) 262, 16 Ann. Cas. 731;Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Works, 199 U. S. 306, 26 Sup. Ct. 100, 50 L. Ed. 204;Gardner v. Michigan, 199 U. S. 325, 26 Sup. Ct. 106, 50 L. Ed. 212;Laurel Hill Cemetery Co. v. San Francisco, 216 U. S. 358, 30 Sup. Ct. 301, 54 L. Ed. 515;Atlantic City v. Abbott......
-
Police Powers and the Constitution of India: the Inconspicuous Ascent of an Incongruous American Implant
...supra note 3. An exercise of eminent domain, on the other hand was to be accompanied by just compensation.126. See Gardner v. Michigan, 199 U.S. 325, 330 (1905) (holding that the abatement of a noxious use is not a "taking" of property, since what is noxious can hardly be regarded as "prope......