Mayor of Niles v. Muzzy

Decision Date02 November 1875
Citation33 Mich. 61
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesThe Mayor, etc., of Niles, v. Franklin Muzzy

Submitted on Briefs October 22, 1875

Error to Berrien Circuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Edward Bacon, for plaintiffs in error.

W. J Gilbert, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Muzzy being an attorney and counselor at law and in chancery, and having been elected mayor of Niles, and in virtue of which office he was one of the common council, he was employed under a resolution of the common council to appear and defend the city in a suit in chancery brought against it by one Young in the Federal court at Detroit.In pursuance of such employment he appeared for the city in his professional character and rendered services which the court found to be worth one hundred dollars.The court below gave judgment in his favor for that sum with interest.Having rendered these valuable professional services, it is now objected that he ought not to be paid for them because he was mayor and councilman.There is no question open in regard to their worth to the city, or as to the necessity there was for them.Every such consideration is closed by the finding.Neither his duty as mayor, or as councilman, or as both, included any such service.He was no more required, in consequence of...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
42 cases
  • Carter v. Bradley County Road Improvement Districts 1 and 2
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 16, 1923
    ...483; 33 F. 440; 44 Ark. 74; 106 Ark. 568; Greenwood on Public Policy, 7; 41 P. 133; 45 N.W. 242; 60 Ga. 222; 109 Cal. 140; 26 Neb. 149; 33 Mich. 61. C. Clary and R. W. Wilson, for appellee. Appellant is barred from any recovery at all, because his claims are either founded upon the contract......
  • City of Ensley v. J.E. Hollingsworth & Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1909
    ... 54 So. 95 170 Ala. 396 MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF ENSLEY v. J. E. HOLLINGSWORTH & CO. Supreme Court of Alabama April 20, 1909 ... Albright v. Town Council of Chester, 9 Rich. Law (S ... C.) 399, and Niles v. Muzzy, 33 Mich. 61, 20 ... Am. Rep. 670. We think, however, the facts in the ... ...
  • Sanborn v. Pentland
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 20, 1922
    ... ... 70; Macon v. Huff, 60 Ga. 221; Frick v ... Brinkley, 61 Ark. 397, 33 S.W. 527; Niles v ... Muzzy, 33 Mich. 61, 20 Am. Rep. 670; Currie v ... School District No. 26, 35 Minn. 163, ... ...
  • Kollock v. Dodge
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1899
    ...for his city under a special contract, because he owed no official duty to the municipality to perform services of that nature. Niles v. Muzzy, 33 Mich. 61. In Love v. Baehr, 47 Cal. 364, it was held that the official duties of an officer are limited by the nature of his office, and that if......
  • Get Started for Free