Van Alstine v. People
| Decision Date | 30 October 1877 |
| Citation | 37 Mich. 523 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert Van Alstine v. The People |
Argued October 16, 1877
Error to Lenawee. (Pratt, J.)
Complaint for violation of village ordinance against fast driving. Defendant brings error. Conviction quashed.
Conviction quashed, and the defendant discharged.
Walker & Weaver and Edwin Hadley for plaintiff in error.
James J. Hogaboom and Wm A. Underwood for the People. An ordinance may take effect on the day named in it, but does not become operative till published. Pike v. Jenkins 12 N.H. 261; United States v. Winn 3 Sumn. 209; Wood v. Adams 35 N.H. 36; Fairbanks v. Antrim 2 N.H. 107. The omission of such a ministerial duty as signing the record of an ordinance will not defeat it, Stevenson v. Bay City 26 Mich. 44. A statute requiring notice of an ordinance to be published three weeks successively in a certain paper was held to be satisfied by two publications on successive Saturdays and one on the following Wednesday in a semi-weekly paper, Hoboken v. Gear 27 N.J.L. 274; Swett v. Sprague 55 Me. 190; Bachelor v Bachelor 1 Mass. 256.
Marston, J. did not sit in this case.
Defendant was prosecuted before a justice for disobedience to an alleged ordinance of the village of Hudson against immoderate driving. The act complained of was on August 2d, 1876, and the prosecution was commenced the day following. The case was tried on the 7th and resulted in a conviction. The defendant appealed, and on a trial in the circuit court he was again convicted. He then alleged exceptions, and they have been certified to this Court. The main one was against the admission of the proof offered to show the existence of the alleged ordinance at the time when the act in question was committed.
The charter of the village, as amended in 1869, provides that the time for its taking effect shall be prescribed in every by-law or ordinance; and moreover that it shall not have effect until it shall have been published for two weeks successively, once in each week, or by written or printed notices posted up in three of the most public places in the village, and that the like notice shall be given of the repeal or amendment of any ordinance or by-law. 2 Sess. L., 1869, p. 877: Act 360, § 56. The precise phraseology of the provision is not given, but the sense is not departed from.
Relying upon the general act of 1865 concerning the mode of proving by-laws and ordinances (How. Stat. § 7527), the prosecution adduced a collection of what it claimed to be by-laws and ordinances of the village, and it included one entitled "an ordinance relative to disorderly conduct," and this was admitted as proof of the ordinance on which the complaint was based. It expressly provided that it should take effect on the 16th day of May, 1873, and it showed that it was passed, ordained and ordered published May 5th, 1873. A further entry in the form of an amendatory ordinance was admitted. This provided that it should take effect on the 8th day of May, 1875, and it declared that it was passed, ordained, and ordered published April 26th, 1875.
The provision referred to in the charter is a very important one, and if there was any necessary disagreement between it and the general statute relating to the mode of proof of by-laws and ordinances, it would of course prevail as against the latter. Being made specially and specifically for the particular place no mere general regulation of earlier date could be allowed to cut it short. But there is no necessary inconsistency between the two enactments. The charter provision deals with the manner in which by-laws and ordinances shall in one respect be framed, and prescribes the time and course of promulgation. The general act, as its title declares, provides "for proving the by-laws."
It does not purport to prescribe the mode of enactment, or what shall be expressed, or what proceedings or time shall be essential for the purpose of promulgation. The mode of proof authorized may be pursued, and yet it may appear on the face of the proceedings that the supposed ordinance has never been constituted according to law, and in such even it could not be treated as a valid one in virtue of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of N. Muskegon v. Miller
...to the validity of ordinances: People v. Keir, 78 Mich. 98, 43 N. W. 1039;Richter v. Harper, 95 Mich. 221, 54 N. W. 768;Van Alstine v. People, 37 Mich. 523. But an examination of these cases discloses the fact that in each case the charter provided that the ordinance should not take effect ......
-
Dewey v. Central Car & Mfg. Co.
...directed and more recent provision to be taken as an exception to the earlier general one. Miller v. Grandy, 13 Mich. 540; Van Alstine v. The People, 37 Mich. 523-524; Cooper v. Skinner, 124 Mass. 183; Nichols Bertram, 3 Pick. 342; Matter of D. & H., C. & Co., 30 N.Y. 209; In re Commissione......