Larkin v. County of Saginaw
| Decision Date | 06 December 1862 |
| Citation | 11 Mich. 88 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | John Larkin and another v. The County of Saginaw and another |
Heard July 19, 1862 [Syllabus Material]
Error to Saginaw Circuit.
The action was brought by Larkin and Sumner against the county of Saginaw and one Hughes, for obstructing the navigation of Tittibawassee River, by the improper construction of a bridge across the same.
The evidence showed that, in 1858, the board of supervisors of said county made an appropriation of $ 1,000 for the construction of said bridge; that in 1859, they, by resolution, declared its erection necessary, fixed upon a site, and appointed a committee of their number to cause the bridge to be constructed upon such plan and within such time as to them might seem expedient for the best interests of the county. They also directed the job of constructing the bridge to be let to the lowest bidder after public notice of the letting, and that a draw should be inserted in the bridge over the channel of the river, not less than forty feet in width, and gave the committee power to draw for the $ 1,000 so appropriated. A change in the plan was afterwards authorized, increasing the expense. In October, 1860, the committee made a report to the board, showing that they had adopted a plan for the bridge, and had let the job for its construction to Hughes. The work was done under the personal inspection of the committee, and was completed early in September, 1860, with a draw or swing according to the plan. The swing having broken down, a further appropriation was made by the board for reconstructing and strengthening it, to be expended by the same committee. In January, 1861, the committee reported the whole completed and accepted, and the board ordered $ 200 to be levied upon certain townships and wards for the purpose of protecting it from ice.
The plaintiffs, who were owners of a steamboat on said river then gave evidence to show that the bridge was constructed in at, improper and defective manner, and formed a serious obstruction to the navigation, and that they had sustained special injury in consequence.
The plaintiffs requested the court to charge the jury, that the board of supervisors had authority to appoint the committee to construct the bridge, and that the acts of the committee under such appointment were the acts of and binding upon the county, and that if the committee in discharging the duties imposed upon them by their appointment, so constructed the bridge that it necessarily prejudiced the rights of the plaintiffs in the navigation of the river, the county is liable for the damage sustained by the plaintiffs. The court declined so to charge, and the plaintiffs excepted.
The court then charged the jury that the board of supervisors had power to raise the means for the construction of said bridge but that when they had determined that it was necessary to build the bridge, and had provided the necessary means for its construction, their power was at an end, and they had no right or authority to expend the money in building the bridge. That the law confers the power on the highway commissioners of the townships in which the bridge is built to expend the money in the construction of the bridge, and that said board exceeded their power when they appointed a committee to adopt a plan for, and superintend the work of building said bridge, and that Saginaw county was not liable for any damage arising from the improper or defective construction of said bridge caused to be built by said board.
Exception was taken to this charge, and the jury having returned a verdict against Hughes but in favor of the county, plaintiffs brought error.
Judgment of the court affirmed.
Moore & Gaylord, for plaintiffs in error:
The action of the board of supervisors was clearly within the power...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Li v. Feldt
...See, e.g., Detroit v. Blackeby, 21 Mich. 84, 4 Am.Rep. 450 (1870); Ashley v. Port Huron, 35 Mich. 296 (1877); Larkin v. Saginaw Co, 11 Mich. 88, 82 Am.Dec. 63 (1862).4 This Court has a long history of rejecting nuisance claims recast as negligence to avoid governmental immunity or some othe......
-
Bush v. Oscoda Area Schools
...immunity from tort liability.23 People ex rel. Ayres v. State Board of Auditors, 42 Mich. 422, 4 N.W. 274 (1880).24 Larkin v. County of Saginaw, 11 Mich. 88 (1862); Dewey v. Detroit, 15 Mich. 307 (1867); Maxmilian v. New York, 62 N.Y. 160, 20 Am.Rep. 468 (1875). Thus legislation for the gen......
-
Bd. Of Ed. v. Volk
...34 N.E. 515; McCarthy v. Boston, 135 Mass. 197; Sullivan v. Holyoke, 135 Mass. 273; Detroit v. Blackeby, 21 Mich. 84; Larkin v. Saginaw County, 11 Mich. 88; Commissioners v. Martin, 4 Mich. 557; Detroit v. Beckman, Mich. 125; Sutton v. Board, 41 Miss. 236; Brabham v. Hinds County, 54 Miss. ......
-
Salliotte v. King Bridge Co.
...and is entitled to any exemption from liability which exists in favor of the supervisors or of the state itself. In Larkin v. County of Saginaw, 11 Mich. 88, 82 Am.Dec. 63, an action was brought for the improper and construction of a bridge, which thereby constituted an obstruction to navig......