City of Bay City v. Lumbermen's State Bank

160 N.W. 425, 193 Mich. 533, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 618
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 21, 1916
DocketDocket No. 51
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 160 N.W. 425 (City of Bay City v. Lumbermen's State Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Bay City v. Lumbermen's State Bank, 160 N.W. 425, 193 Mich. 533, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 618 (Mich. 1916).

Opinion

Person, J.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $4,000 theretofore paid by plaintiff to defendant in connection with the sale of certain bonds, known as the Wenonah Park bonds.

By an act of the legislature, approved March 14, 1907, the city of Bay City was authorized to acquire a site for and to lay out, establish, make, alter, and regulate a public park and grounds; and for that purpose to borrow not to exceed $200,000 and issue its bonds therefor. Section 3 of the act provided:

[535]*535“If authorized by the vote of the electors, .said loan shall be secured by the bonds of the city payable at such times, not less than ten years after the date of their issue, and shall bear such rate of interest, not exceeding four per cent, per annum, as said common council shall determine. The said bonds shall be indorsed ‘Bay City Bonds’ and numbered consecutively, and no sale thereof shall be negotiated at less than face value or par. The proceeds derived from the sale of said bonds shall be paid to the city treasurer and by him placed to the'credit of a fund to be known Us a public park fund. No appropriation or payment out of said fund shall be ordered by the common council, or made, except for the purpose of acquiring a site for and laying out, establishing, making and maintaining a public park and grounds.” Act No. 409, Local Acts 1907.

At the same session of the legislature, and by an ict approved June 27, 1907, provisions were made for ;he appointment of a board of park commissioners to cake charge of the public parks and grounds of the city, and exercise supervision over them. The eomnon council was required by this act to sell the bonds authorized by the preceding act and deposit the proceeds with the treasurer of the city, to the credit of 3, fund to be known as the “Wenonah Park fund.” And t was further provided that:

“No money shall be drawn therefrom except upon ;he order or warrant of said commission, duly authenticated by its secretary and signed by its chairman md countersigned by the comptroller of said city. The proceeds of the sale of said bonds shall be used exclusively for paying the cost and expense of purchasing and condemning or otherwise acquiring the property herein described for said Wenonah Park, and to pay the cost and expense of laying out the grounds so acquired and improving and making same into a suitable public park, it being the intent and purpose of this act that all of the funds obtained from the sale of said bonds shall be expended exclusively Ifor said Wenonah Park.” Act No. 720, Local Acts 1.907, § 11.

[536]*536Section 16 of the same act reads as follows:

“Said board of park commissioners shall have powei and authority to contract for the sale of and to sell at the best price obtainable, in their judgment, any buildings, building material or salvage, upon '.the site of said Wenonah Park; also to contract for the removal of such buildings, building material and salvagi therefrom on the best terms which, in their judgment may Jbe obtained. The proceeds of the sale of suet buildings, building material or salvage shall be paic into the treasury of Bay City and there deposited tc the credit and as part of said Wenonah Park fund to be used, expended and paid out for the purpose anc in the manner in this act provided.”

At the April election, following the passage of thest acts, the issuance of the bonds was duly authorizec by a vote of the electors; and after an unsuccessful attempt to effect their sale by advertisement, the common council received the following proposition' iron the defendant bank:

“Bay City, Michigan, July 5, 1907.
“To the Honorable Gustaves Hine,
“Bay City, Michigan.
“Dear Sir: Concerning the park bonds of Bay City to be issued, I am authorized to make the following proposition: For the issue of $200,000 we will tak< these bonds at par with accrued interest from date oí bonds up to and including June 30, 1907, less a com; mission or discount of $4,000.
“H. H. Norrington,
“Vice President Lumbermen’s State Bank.”

In July of the same year, the ways and means com-J mittee of the common council made a report to thall body, which was adopted by unanimous vote. This! report read as follows: 1

“Gentlemen: We have had under consideration thei matter of the sale of park bonds, and have received! a proposition from the Lumbermen’s State Bank tc| take said bonds and pay the city par and accrued in [537]*537fcerest therefor, said bonds to be delivered to said bank August 1st, or as soon thereafter as possible, on condition that the park commission will pay to the said bank the sum of $4,000 for negotiating the sale of said bonds at par and accrued interest from the receipt of rents from the buildings now located on the property intended for park purposes after the same has been acquired by the park commission. We therefore recommend that such proposition be accepted, and that the mayor and comptroller procure the said bonds at once, properly lithographed and designated Wenonah Park bonds, in form to the satisfaction of the bank’s attorney.”

On October 7, 1907, the bank made the following reply to this action of the common council:

“Bay City, Michigan, October 7, 1907.
“To the Honorable Mayor and Common Council,
“Bay City, Michigan.
“Gentlemen: Our proposition to purchase the $200,-000 park bonds having been accepted by your honorable body with certain modifications with reference to details fully set forth in a report of your ways and means committee, adopted and approved by your honorable body July 15, 1907, we herewith accept such conditions and the provisions set forth in said report.
“Yours, etc.,
“Lumbermen’s State Bank,
“By H. H. Norrington, Vice President.”

After the action of the common council above recited, and prior to its acceptance by the bank, the board of park commissioners had, under date of September 9th, passed the following resolution: '

“Resolved, that the authorization by the common council of Bay City to this board to pay the Lumbermen’s State bank the sum of $4,000 on the sale of the park bonds to said bank be and is hereby approved, and that this commission will promptly comply with said provision, and will pay same at the earliest opportunity after the sale is consummated and said conds are delivered to said bank, the said $4,000 to be [538]*538paid from the rents and salvage from said Wenonah Park property.”

The defendant bank offered to show upon the trial that the proposition from the bank referred to in the report of the ways and means committee was an oral proposition, and not the one contained in the letter from the bank of July 5th. The evidence was excluded and its rejection is assigned as error; but, even if received, it would not have been material. It is not shown that it ever came to the knowledge of the common council, and, whatever it was, the contract itself is contained in the report of the committee as adopted by the council, and its acceptance by the bank.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hayes v. Sanitary & Improvement District No. 194
244 N.W.2d 505 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1976)
Deming v. Board of Supervisors
21 N.W.2d 19 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1945)
Alison v. Whitcomb
286 N.W. 165 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1939)
Rogers & Tracy, Inc. v. Board of Education
99 F.2d 773 (Seventh Circuit, 1938)
Duff v. Knott County
36 S.W.2d 870 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Young v. Gard
277 P. 1005 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1929)
Board of Ed. v. American National Co.
1928 OK 258 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
American Surety Co. of New York v. Hill County
254 S.W. 241 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Arkansas Foundry Co. v. Stanley
233 S.W. 922 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1921)
County of Koochiching v. Elder
176 N.W. 195 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 N.W. 425, 193 Mich. 533, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-bay-city-v-lumbermens-state-bank-mich-1916.