Perry v. Cheboygan

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtCHAMPLIN
Citation21 N.W. 333,55 Mich. 250
Decision Date19 November 1884
PartiesPERRY v. CHEBOYGAN.

55 Mich. 250
21 N.W. 333

PERRY
v.
CHEBOYGAN.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Filed November 19, 1884.


Error to Cheboygan.

[21 N.W. 333]

Jas. J. Brown, for plaintiff.

Geo. W. Bell, for defendant.


CHAMPLIN, J.

This action was brought by plaintiff to recover from defendant for services as member of the board of water commissioners of the village of Cheboygan for one year from August 1, 1882, and also for extra services outside of duties as water commissioner. The declaration was the common counts in assumpsit. A bill of particulars was filed, showing items from May, 1880, to April, 1883, amounting to $805.15. This includes one item without date for “services as member of the board of water commissioners of the village of Cheboygan for one year, from August 1, 1882, to August 1, 1883, inclusive-$500.” The plea was the general issue, and notice that plaintiff had received $50 in full accord and satisfaction of all claims and demands. Plaintiff recovered $166.25. It was proved on the trial that plaintiff, on the eleventh day of July, 1882, was appointed a member of the board of water commissioners of the village of Cheboygan by the common council of the village; that plaintiff is an engineer and mechanic; that immediately after his appointment he entered upon the duties of his office; that the water-works were nearing completion when he was appointed. After his appointment and during the year they were completed, tested, and accepted. The extra services charged for consisted of the personal labor and superintendence by the plaintiff of work at various times in connection with the constructing and completing the water-works, a portion of which required mechanical skill, and were worth in the aggregate from $116.25 to $249.50; that when any mechanical work had to be done, the plaintiff did it, or superintended the doing of it.

Plaintiff testified on cross-examination: “I generally did the work at the request of the board of water commissioners or yourself, (meaning defendant's counsel, who was also a member of the board;) sometimes I did it on

[21 N.W. 334]

my own responsibility, knowing it should be looked after. I kept no account of my services at the time, and did not intend to make any separate charge for my extra work, the items of which are set forth and contained in the bill of particulars, expecting that the council would allow me a fair compensation for my services, and the claim that I sent in to the council included the extra work as well as the official services; and after the council refused to allow my account, I went to work and got it together the best way I could.” On the third day of July, 1883, plaintiff sent in a bill of $10 to the council, for services for one year as a member of the board, which was allowed and paid. The amount was a mistake. Plaintiff intended to send in a bill for $100, and July 17, 1883, he sent in another bill for $90. This was referred to the committee on claims and accounts, who, in turn, referred it to the board of water commissioners, and they recommended its allowance; but the council only allowed it at $50, which amount was paid to the plaintiff. Plaintiff testifies that there was no understanding or agreement that he should take the $50 by way of compromise, and he did not accept it in full settlement of his claims against the village.

The defendant was incorporated under the general law for the incorporation of villages. How.St. c. 81. The only provision contained in this chapter relative to the compensation of village officers is in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...Rapids, 48 N.W. 178; Browne v. Board (Mich.), 85 N.W. 745; Sharp v. Mauston, 66 N.W. 803; People v. Board, 52 N.Y. 89; Perry v. Cheboygan, 21 N.W. 333; Board v. Morgan, 65 P. 41; Murphy v. U.S. 14 Otto, 464 (5 N.W. 176); 17 Am. Dec., 118; Alice v. Billing, 2 Cush., 26; Fisher v. Hay, 5 Am. ......
  • Sebewaing Industries, Inc. v. Village of Sebewaing, No. 423
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 5, 1953
    ...exclusio alterius. Express mention in a statute of one thing implies the exclusion of other similar things. Perry v. Village of Cheboygan, 55 Mich. 250, 21 N.W. 333; Weinberg v. Regents of the University of Michigan, 97 Mich. 246, 56 N.W. 605; Marshall v. Wabash Railway Co., 201 Mich. 167, ......
  • Western Const. Co. v. Bd. of Com'rs of Carroll Cnty., No. 22,142.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 7, 1912
    ...balance rejected. Sharp v. City of Mauston, 92 Wis. 629, 66 N. W. 803;Davey v. Big Rapids, 85 Mich. 56, 48 N. W. 178;Perry v. Cheboygan, 55 Mich. 250, 21 N. W. 333; Callahan v. New York, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 230, affirmed 66 N. Y. 656; 28 Cyc. 1752. The above rule was recognized by this court in ......
  • Etzold v. Bd. of Com'rs of Huntington Cnty., No. 11440.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 19, 1925
    ...amount allowed. Butler v. Board, 177 Ind. 440, 98 N. E. 185;Western, etc., Co. v. Board, 178 Ind. 684, 98 N. E. 347;Perry v. Cheboygan, 55 Mich. 250, 21 N. E. 333;Davy v. Big Rapids, 85 Mich. 56, 48 N. W. 178; Callahan v. The Mayor, etc., 6 Daly (N. Y.) 230; Paulson v. Ward County, 23 N. D.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...Rapids, 48 N.W. 178; Browne v. Board (Mich.), 85 N.W. 745; Sharp v. Mauston, 66 N.W. 803; People v. Board, 52 N.Y. 89; Perry v. Cheboygan, 21 N.W. 333; Board v. Morgan, 65 P. 41; Murphy v. U.S. 14 Otto, 464 (5 N.W. 176); 17 Am. Dec., 118; Alice v. Billing, 2 Cush., 26; Fisher v. Hay, 5 Am. ......
  • Sebewaing Industries, Inc. v. Village of Sebewaing, No. 423
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 5, 1953
    ...exclusio alterius. Express mention in a statute of one thing implies the exclusion of other similar things. Perry v. Village of Cheboygan, 55 Mich. 250, 21 N.W. 333; Weinberg v. Regents of the University of Michigan, 97 Mich. 246, 56 N.W. 605; Marshall v. Wabash Railway Co., 201 Mich. 167, ......
  • Western Const. Co. v. Bd. of Com'rs of Carroll Cnty., No. 22,142.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 7, 1912
    ...balance rejected. Sharp v. City of Mauston, 92 Wis. 629, 66 N. W. 803;Davey v. Big Rapids, 85 Mich. 56, 48 N. W. 178;Perry v. Cheboygan, 55 Mich. 250, 21 N. W. 333; Callahan v. New York, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 230, affirmed 66 N. Y. 656; 28 Cyc. 1752. The above rule was recognized by this court in ......
  • Etzold v. Bd. of Com'rs of Huntington Cnty., No. 11440.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 19, 1925
    ...amount allowed. Butler v. Board, 177 Ind. 440, 98 N. E. 185;Western, etc., Co. v. Board, 178 Ind. 684, 98 N. E. 347;Perry v. Cheboygan, 55 Mich. 250, 21 N. E. 333;Davy v. Big Rapids, 85 Mich. 56, 48 N. W. 178; Callahan v. The Mayor, etc., 6 Daly (N. Y.) 230; Paulson v. Ward County, 23 N. D.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT