Tice v. Bay City
| Decision Date | 28 December 1889 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | TICE v. CITY OF BAY CITY. |
Error to circuit court, Bay county
Case by Maggie F. Tice against the city of Bay City, for injuries sustained from a defective sidewalk in defendant city. The action was brought under section 1 of Laws Mich. 1887, No 264, entitled "An act to provide for the recovery of damages for injuries caused," etc. Defendant assigned as error that the act violated Const. Mich. art. 4, � 20, which provides that "no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title," claiming that section 5 abrogated the alleged common-law liability thus abolishing a remedy without reference thereto in the title. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
John C. Weadock, (T. A. E. Weadock, of counsel) for appellant.
Shepard & Lyon, for appellee.
This is an action on the case brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, to recover for a personal injury received by reason of plaintiff's foot being caught in a hole in the sidewalk on the east side of Jefferson street, in Bay City. There seems to be no question but that the walk was one it was the duty of the city to keep in repair, and that it was defective when the plaintiff received her injury is not denied; but it is claimed by the defendant that the walk was not in an unsafe condition, and, further, that the defect, such as it was, was never known to the defendant previous to the accident. Such was the contention of defendant's counsel before the jury. On the trial the plaintiff had a verdict for $2,300.
The defendant brings error. It is assigned as error and claimed by defendant's counsel that the law under which the action is brought is unconstitutional. We find nothing in the law unconstitutional, either in its title or mode of enactment, or in the body of the act itself.
It is also thought the declaration is insufficient, by defendant's counsel. He did not demur to it, and we think it is sufficient. It is claimed it does not sufficiently state knowledge or notice of the defect by the defendant. It avers that the accident occurred in Bay City, and upon one of its principal streets, through and by reason of a defective sidewalk; that the defect was a dangerous one, had existed there for three months, and that the defendant then and there knew it was unsafe, and not fit for travel. We see no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearce v. Rodell
...above stated, this court cited Dundas v. City of Lansing, 75 Mich. 499, 42 N.W. 1011,5 L.R.A. 143, 13 Am.St.Rep. 457;Tice v. Bay City, 78 Mich. 209, 44 N.W. 52;Jones v. Village of Portland, 88 Mich. 598, 50 N.W. 731,16 L.R.A. 437. In De Groot v. Winter, 261 Mich. 660, 247 N.W. 69, it was sa......
-
De Groot v. Winter
...was that a physician cannot testify to what his patient told him of the cause of the injury to prove such disputed fact. Tice v. Bay City, 78 Mich. 209, 44 N. W. 52, also cited, had no relevant point. The general rule has a proper application to facts and causes and conditions and connectio......
-
City of Lansing v. Board of State Auditors
...32 N.W. 921; Boyce v. Sebring, 66 Mich. 210, 33 N.W. 815; Board of Sup'rs v. Auditor General, 65 Mich. 408, 32 N.W. 651; Tice v. Bay City, 78 Mich. 209, 44 N.W. 52. remaining question relates to the effect of the general tax law of 1893. This act provided a general rule for the assessment a......
-
De Haan v. Winter
...to our own decisions. Dundas v. City of Lansing, 75 Mich. 499, 42 N. W. 1011 [5 L. R. A. 143, 13 Am. St. Rep. 457];Tice v. Bay City, 78 Mich. 209, 44 N. W. 52.’ The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to defenant.CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, FEAD, and BUT......