Trump Mfg. Co. v. Village of Buchanan

• Decision Date: 15 March 1898
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: TRUMP MFG. CO. v. VILLAGE OF BUCHANAN.

74 N.W. 466

116 Mich. 113

TRUMP MFG. CO. v. VILLAGE OF BUCHANAN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 15, 1898

Error to circuit court, Berrien county; Orville W. Coolidge, Judge.

Action by the Trump Manufacturing Company against the village of Buchanan. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Howard, Roos & Howard, for appellant.

A. A Worthington and Edward Bacon, for appellee.

LONG J.

This action was brought to recover the amount of $815.10 and interest, claimed to be due plaintiff upon a written contract for the purchase by defendant of two penstocks for waterwork purposes. The cause was heard before the court without a jury, and findings made. Judgment was entered in favor of defendant. It substantially appears from these findings that the plaintiff is the assignee of W. C. Leffel & Co., and is entitled to sue in its own name on this contract. The defendant village was organized under the general law. In September, 1894, Leffel & Co. made a proposition in writing to sell to the defendant the two penstocks, and set the same for the sum of $843.10, times of payment to be agreed upon. The president and clerk of the village wrote in answer to this proposition that it was accepted, and added: "Will at once correspond with your company as to our best terms of payment." At a meeting of the village council had October 1, 1894, a resolution was passed accepting the proposition of Leffel & Co., with the following proviso "That they furnish the same on one year's time, at five per cent. interest." On October 5th the clerk of the village sent a copy of this resolution to Leffel & Co. who answered on the 15th, acknowledging the receipt of it and agreeing to the terms proposed, and stating: "We are now at work, and will rush it through as rapidly as possible." The clerk of the village acknowledged receipt of this letter. The work was completed and sent forward to the defendant. The agent of Leffel & Co. was at Buchanan when the penstocks came, and he was directed by the president of the village and one of the trustees to take the penstocks to the dam across the St. Joseph river, in the village, and place the same in the stone wall which separated the race from the river. They were set, and the village authorities caused them to be cemented in at the expense of the village. On January 25, 1895, the clerk, at the request of the common council, wrote Leffel & Co. as to what would be the best figure cash down, instead of note, would be received in payment for the penstocks. In answer to this, Leffel & Co. wrote it would take $830.78 if paid at the next meeting of the council. This was not paid, and no further action taken. On April 25th Leffel & Co. presented its bill to the council. The legal name of Leffel & Co. was changed to the Trump Manufacturing Company, the plaintiff here, and in November it presented claim to the defendant. The common council thereupon, at a meeting duly held, took action upon the matter, and resolved: "That the alleged contract, by reason of want of authority, was never obligatory on said municipal corporation, and has ever been inoperative and of no legal effect; that it never received said penstocks, and has never received any benefit; that they have never been annexed to any real estate, so as to become a part thereof, and are not in possession of the village." The proposition is then made in the resolution that the plaintiff receive them back, and that, if so accepted, the village will load them on cars with freight prepaid to Springfield, Ohio. This proposition was refused by the plaintiff, and suit was commenced. The court further found "that the assessed valuation of the real and personal property of the village for the year 1894, as shown by the assessment roll of that year, was the sum of $562,000, and that the village council duly and legally voted to raise for the year 1894 twelve mills on the dollar for the general fund, and three mills on the dollar for the highway fund; that, for the year 1895, the assessed valuation of the real and personal property of the village, as shown by the assessment roll, was the sum of $565,000, and that the village council duly and legally voted to raise for the year 1895 twelve and one-half mills on the dollar for the general fund, and two and one-half mills on the dollar for the highway fund. (11) That the common council undertook to purchase the penstocks in question under a supposition that the proposition for purchasing the horse power of the Buchanan Power & Electric Company and operating waterworks by power obtained at the dam would receive a majority of the votes of the taxpayers, and that the agent of the plaintiff had knowledge of the fact that the penstocks would be of no use or benefit to the defendant unless a new system or radical change in the existing waterworks should be introduced, and that a meeting of the taxpayers to determine whether such new system or change should be introduced was proposed. (12) That on October 1, 1894, and for some time prior thereto, the village of Buchanan had operated a system of waterworks, but that they were located about three-fourths of a mile distant from the place where the penstocks were placed. (13) That on December 21, 1894, a resolution was passed by the common council, submitting to the vote of the taxpayers of said village a proposition for purchasing 150 horse power of the Buchanan Power & Electric Company at an expense of several thousand dollars; that it was contemplated, among other things, that pumps to be used in the waterworks system of said village should be operated by the power thus obtained, and that water wheels would be placed at the dam on the St. Joseph river, inclosed by the penstocks in question, to be used in connection with the operation of said waterworks system; that said proposition, at the meeting of the taxpayers on January 4, 1895, was defeated, and the plan of operating the waterworks from power obtained at the dam was abandoned."

As conclusions of law, embracing therewith some findings of fact above recited, the court found as follows: "(1) That in the year 1894 the common council of the village of Buchanan had the legal authority to raise by taxation and loan a sum not exceeding one and one-quarter per cent. on the dollar of the assessed valuation of the property in said village; that such assessed valuation amounted to the sum of $562,000; that the amount, therefore, which said council might lawfully raise by levy and pledge, was $7,025; that the council, in the spring of 1894, levied a tax of twelve mills on the dollar for the general fund, which made a total assessment of $6,744; that thereafter the common council during the fiscal year could not legally increase the indebtedness of the said village more than $216 without the...