People ex rel. Hubbard v. Township Board of Springwells
| Decision Date | 17 May 1872 |
| Citation | 25 Mich. 153 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The People on the relation of Bela Hubbard and others v. The Township Board of Springwells |
Heard May 14, 1872
Application for mandamus.
Mandamus refused, with costs of the motion.
D. C Holbrook and G. V. N. Lothrop, for the respondents.
C. I Walker, for the relators.
By act No. 414 of 1871, the governor was empowered to appoint three commissioners to improve Fort street from the western limits of the city of Detroit to the Dearborn road-- the entire work being in the township of Springwells. The commissioners were not required to reside in the town, and, in fact, a majority did not. The work to be done included macadamizing and draining the street, with some other necessary finishing, and when done it was to be paid for by issuing bonds of the township, the interest of which was to be met by a general tax on the township, and the principal by an assessment made for that purpose in the outset by the commissioners, upon the lands fronting on the street; which was made a district for the purposes of the assessment, on which the cost was to be apportioned according to the benefits.
The statute provided that the governor should remove and re-appoint commissioners at his pleasure. The road when finished was to continue under their care and custody, and they were required to keep it in repair. They were authorized to levy tolls upon the same terms allowed to plank road companies, and subject to the same exemptions, including farmers going to and from work, and persons and vehicles going to and from public worship, and to and from funerals. Any further repairs not made up from the tolls were to be paid for by tax on the real and personal property in the assessment district. The commissioners were to receive the per diem of supervisors (except one who as a civil engineer was to receive five dollars per day), all these fees until the road was finished being payable as expenses and included in the bonds, and all services subsequently rendered being paid by similar fees, but being made town charges and payable as other town charges, out of the town treasury.
The improvements having been made, the board of commissioners applied to the township board to issue the bonds, but the latter refused to issue them, claiming the law to be invalid. A mandamus being now applied for, this defense is relied on, the street being a common highway of the township, and the respondents insisting on the want of power in the legislature to put it in the hands of the commission, or to provide for its improvement, by the means set forth in the act. A replication was filed insisting that by permitting the commission to take possession of the street and improve it, without protest, the township is precluded from objecting to the invalidity of the statute.
The first inquiry which presents itself, is as to the position of the commissioners. They are appointed by the State, derive all their powers from the State, are subject to no supervision of any one, except as to the governor's power of removal, and, with their successors appointed in the same way, hold in perpetuity. They are, then, officers or agents of the State.
The money to pay the principal debt created by the work, is payable out of an assessment levied according to their discretion upon lands in the district. The sums payable are fixed by themselves, their bills are certified by themselves, the tolls are levied and repairs made at their discretion, and the taxes are all to be levied for such sums as they fix. The town authorities have no discretion, but merely collect what they require, and issue bonds for the sums they require.
The work in question is one specifically ordered to be made by a law of the State, and the moneys are to be raised and expended by State agents, the expense being charged in part upon a township, and in part upon a smaller district, but leaving these localities no option of receiving or rejecting the burden.
By article XIV, section 9 of the State Constitution, it is declared: "The State shall not be a party to, or interested in any work of internal improvement, or engaged in carrying on any such work, except in the expenditure of grants to the State of land or other property."
That a macadamized road is a "work of internal improvement" is manifest. The shortness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Owen v. Donald
...grant broadly in favor of the power. That will be seen by an examination of the following: Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 270;People v. Town Board, etc., 25 Mich. 153;Sparrow v. Commissioners of Land Office, 56 Mich. 567, 23 N. W. 315;Wilcox v. Paddock, etc., 65 Mich. 23, 31 N. W. 609. Campbell......
-
Carson v. St. Francis Levee District
...form of government. Cooley on Const. Lim. (5th ed.) 209; 24 Mich. 88-108; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. secs. 8-9; 1 Beach, Pub. Corp. sec. 87; 25 Mich. 153; 28 Mich. 228; 60 Pa.St. 16; 3 Heisk. 698; 51 Ill. 130; Ill. 111; 71 Ill. 318; 81 Ill. 49; 82 Ala. 242; 2 Metc. (Ky.) 350; 65 Mich. 23; 34 P. 419......
-
Coleman v. Kansas City
...87 S.W.2d l.c. 205, 337 Mo. 913; Lexington v. Thompson, 68 S.W. 477; Metz v. Maddox, 82 N.E. 507; State v. Simon, 53 N.J.L. 550; People v. Township, 25 Mich. 153; Davies Saginaw, 50 N.W. 862; Prescott v. Ferris, 295 N.Y.S. 818; Tiger v. Court of Common Pleas, 42 N.J.L. 631; Stahl v. Inhabit......
-
State ex rel. Attorney General v. Moores
... ... members of the board of fire and police commissioners of the ... city of Omaha ... legislature to prevent the people of the city of Omaha from ... selecting their own ... Detroit , 80 Mich. 663, 45 ... N.W. 508; Hubbard v. Township Board of Springwells , ... 25 Mich. 153; ... ...