Pease v. Common Council of City of Saginaw
| Decision Date | 07 May 1901 |
| Citation | 126 Mich. 436,85 N.W. 1082 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEASE v. COMMON COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAGINAW. |
Certiorari to circuit court, Saginaw county; Byron A. Snow, Judge.
Mandamus on the relation of L. Willard Pease, against the common council of the city of Saginaw to compel respondent to allow his claim for professional services. From an order denying the writ, relator brings certiorari. Reversed.
William G. Gage, for relator.
Henry E. Naegely, for respondent.
Relator is a physician, and under the direction of the board of health of the city of Saginaw performed professional services for the city in certain contagious diseases. He presented his bill for $480 to the board of health, and that body allowed it at that sum. The bill was then certified to the controller and the committee of the council on finance and auditing who, after taking testimony as to the value of the services reached the conclusion that the usual charge was $3 per visit, instead of $5, as charged by the relator, and thereupon reported to the common council recommending that the claim be allowed at $292, and that relator be tendered that amount in full settlement of his claim. This recommendation being adopted by the common council, the bill was allowed at that sum. An order was drawn upon the city treasurer for that amount in favor of the relator, which order he at fist refused to take. It is the claim he at first refused to take. It is the claim who informed him he could take the order, and that it would not be a receipt in full for his services, and that thereupon he took the order. The city refusing to pay anything more upon the claim, relator presented his petition for mandamus to the circuit court of Saginaw county to compel respondent to pay the balance of his claim. The respondent filed an answer to this petition, setting up the facts, and claiming that the relator had accepted the order in full payment of his claim. A replication was filed to this answer, and an issue framed upon the question whether the relator did accept the order in full payment of his claim. The court found upon that question in favor of respondent. The city, in making return to the order to show cause before the circuit court, returns that the value of relator's services did not exceed $292, and that this amount was tendered him, and by him accepted, in full payment of his claim. The court below having denied the writ of mandamus, the case is brought into this court by writ of certiorari. It is claimed by counsel for relator: (1) That it was the duty of the board of health to pass upon the amount of compensation; that that board only could fix the amount owing him; and that the amount so fixed could not be reduced by action of the common council, but that it was bound to issue the order to him for the amount claimed. (2) That, although the court below found that the relator accepted the $292 in full payment of his claim, yet, having the legal right to the full amount allowed by the board of health, he is not estopped from claiming the balance due him.
Act No 455, Local Acts 1889, provides that: 'The common council shall have power by ordinance to establish a board of health and to invest it with all such power and to impose upon it such duties as shall be necessary to secure the inhabitants of the city from contagious, malignant and infectious diseases, and to provide for its proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial