Smith v. City Comm'n of Flint
| Decision Date | 06 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | April Term.,Motion No. 42 |
| Citation | 242 N.W. 814,258 Mich. 698 |
| Parties | SMITH v. CITY COMMISSION OF FLINT. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Genesee County; Edward D. Black, Judge.
Mandamus by Willard C. Smith against City Commission of Flint. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Wilson & Hoffman, of Flint, for appellant.
Carton, Gault & Parker, Vincent D. Ryan, and Millard & Roberts, all of Flint, for appellee.
Plaintiff, a veteran of the World War, was an employee of the police department of the city of Flint. Upon the reorganization of the department and a reduction of the force, he was dropped from the roll of employees. The chief of police and acting city manager, October 20, 1930, filed charges against him, stating the reasons for plaintiff's discharge. These were that, due to the general economic condition of the city, it was necessary to reduce the police force in order to reduce the budget; to reorganize the police department and combine duties which had been exercised by different individuals so they would be exercised by fewer heads; that the city had consolidated its identification bureau, its record bureau, and its auto squad record bureau, which had been under separate heads, under one head, thereby discontinuing the service of two men, one of whom was plaintiff. Plaintiff had no police training, but was a clerical employee and temperamentally unfitted to get along with other officers; was constantly being complained of, and, in reducing the police force, curtailing expenditures and balancing the budget, 21 officers of the city police department had been released; plaintiff was incompetent to handle any other position in the police department of defendant for which there was a vacancy.
Plaintiff claims, in answer, he is a World War veteran, qualified physically and otherwise competent, and the charges against him were vague and uncertain.
A hearing was had, November 3, 1930, before the mayor and city commission, testimony taken, and at the conclusion of the testimony a resolution adopted by the city commission sustaining plaintiff's discharge.
Plaintiff brought mandamus proceedings in the circuit court, an order to show cause was issued, an answer filed, the case heard, a peremptory writ of mandamus issued, and defendant appeals, claiming the circuit court had no right to review the legislative or administrative action of the city commission; in the absence of fraud or caprice, the circuit judge has no right to review the weight of the evidence upon which the city commission acted; the Veterans' Preference Act does not prevent the discharge of an ex-soldier employee brought about by budget curtailment, due to the lack of tax collections or abolition of the position formerly held by him, and does not prevent the abolition of the position held by plaintiff by a consolidation of departments to reduce expenses.
It is plain from a cursory examination of the Constitution and the debates of the convention which framed it that it was the intention of that instrument that local municipal government should be administered by and through local municipal corporations. People ex rel. Le Roy v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 9 Am. Rep. 103. As said by Cooley, J., in People ex rel. Attorney General v. Detroit Council, 29 Mich. 108: ‘Nothing within that instrument is more conspicuous than the purpose to preserve our local institutions.’
The Constitution of 1908 went farther in extending the right of local self-government than that of 1850 considered by the court in the case last cited.
There is no doubt the control of a city police department is a function of local municipal government. Dillon, Municipal Corp. (5th Ed.) par. 165.
The Veterans' Preference Act (Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 900-903) was passed for a commendable purpose, but it cannot be construed to infringe upon the constitutional right of local municipal self-government vested by the Constitution in the cities of Michigan. The Veterans' Preference Act provides there shall be no removals except for cause (Comp. Laws 1929, § 901), but: ‘Notwithstanding these statutory restrictions and qualifications...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Payne
...well settled that one function of local municipal government is to provide and control a police department. See Smith v. City Comm'n of Flint, 258 Mich. 698, 242 N.W. 814 (1932). No other apparent exception to state tort immunity is present here. Therefore, the Defendant, City of Pontiac, i......
-
Kunzig v. Liquor Control Commission, 41
...proposition that a city can dismiss a civil service employee by abolishing the position which the employee holds. Smith v. Flint City Commission, 258 Mich. 698, 242 N.W. 814, and cases cited therein; and that a city may abolish a position for bona fide reasons of economy, Slavin v. City of ......
-
Luhrs v. City of Phoenix, Civil 3963
... ... 215 Cal. 384, 10 P.2d 745; City of Wewoka v ... Rodman, 172 Okl. 630, 46 P.2d 334; Smith v ... City Com. of Flint, 258 Mich. 698, 242 N.W. 814; ... City of Lexington v. Thompson, 113 ... ...
-
Civil Service Com'n v. Department of Labor
...Civil Service, p. 215.It is argued that this principle has been recognized in Michigan. The referees cite Smith v. Flint City Comm., 258 Mich. 698, 701, 242 N.W. 814 (1932); Owen v. Detroit, 259 Mich. 176, 177, 242 N.W. 878 (1932). They further argue that courts look through the argument th......