McBride v. City of Grand Rapids

• Decision Date: 27 October 1881
• Citation: 47 Mich. 236,10 N.W. 353
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MCBRIDE v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS.

10 N.W. 353

47 Mich. 236

MCBRIDE v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 27, 1881

Payment of salaries due a municipal officer should be enforced by mandamus rather than by ordinary action.

Where an officer of a city is called upon, by the authorities of a city, to render services outside of his official duty, he is entitled to compensation therefor the same as a stranger.

Error to superior court of Grand Rapids.

Lawrence E. Carroll and Wm. Wisner Taylor, for plaintiff in error.

Stuart & Sweet, for defendant in error.

CAMPBELL J.

Plaintiff sued the city of Grand Rapids for several items, including first, for two months' salary as police justice in 1874 second, for service in preparing ordinances; third, for preparing bills for the city to collect costs from the county and, fourth, for money paid into the treasury by mistake and not refunded.

The first of these claims was for two months' salary which was fixed by the council at $1,200 per year and made by law payable monthly.Plaintiff claims that this was due him absolutely, and the city claimed that in consideration of it he agreed to do certain things concerning a substitute.In either case, whether subject to counter equities or not, the sum claimed and payable in the first instance was fixed.Whether any force is due to the supposed contract to furnish a substitute during his absence or not is of no consequence on this issue, for plaintiff sues for a sum certain, and there is nothing in the record which would change its character as presented in evidence, so as to answer the objection that a mandamus should have been resorted to.Payment of salaries can be better enforced in that way, and officers should not be driven to an action when a summary remedy is the only one which will prevent gross injustice.SeeJust v. Township of Wise,42 Mich. 573;People v. Board of Auditors of Wayne,13 Mich. 233;Same v. Same,5 Mich. 223;Peterson v. Manistee,36 Mich. 8;Dayton v. Rounds,27 Mich. 82.

All of that part of the case may be disregarded.In regard to his services in drafting ordinances it appears that the council appointed a committee of its own members, to act with the city attorney, police justice and chief of police, to make a revision of the ordinances, and that in making this revision plaintiff did a large part of the work of drafting and shaping them, and spent some time in obtaining information to draw them properly.Upon this the court instructed the jury that it was the business of the city attorney to prepare ordinances, and that he could not employ others without the authority of the council.But the court further directed the jury, that if plaintiff was employed by the committee on an understanding that he should be paid, and this was known to the council, and they accepted and adopted the ordinances, then he was entitled to a reasonable sum.

As police...