Davies v. Board of Supervisors

50 N.W. 862, 89 Mich. 295, 1891 Mich. LEXIS 619
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 22, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 50 N.W. 862 (Davies v. Board of Supervisors) 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
Davies v. Board of Supervisors, 50 N.W. 862, 89 Mich. 295, 1891 Mich. LEXIS 619 (Mich. 1891).

Opinion

McGrath, J.

This is a bill filed to restrain the issue of bonds under Act No. 314, Laws of 1889, on the ground that the law is invalid.

The act provides—

That the board of supervisors of Saginaw county shall submit to the electors of said county' a proposition to bond the county for the sum of $100,000 for the purpose of the construction and maintenance of stone, gravel, macadamized, or other roads in said county, as provided in the act.
That, if the majority of the electors shall vote in favor of the issue of such bonds, the said board, at its next meeting, shall determine the length of time said bonds shall run, and the rate of interest they shall bear.
That certain roads in certain townships in said county . are declared to be State roads, and the board of supervisors shall have power and is authorized to construct, improve, and maintain said State roads, and also any other roads in said county that may hereafter be declared to be State roads.
[297]*297That the city of Saginaw and eight townships, naming them, are declared to constitute and be a road-district, to be known as “ Stone Road-District Number One;” and the city of East Saginaw and six other townships are to constitute road-district No. 2; and the said board of supervisors shall have power from time to time to change the limits of said stone road-districts by adding townships thereto.”
That the board of supervisors may, for the purpose of this act, declare any other legal highway in said county to be a State road, and shall have power to improve the same.,
That at the next meeting of the said board of supervisors, after the electors of said county have voted in favor of said loan, the said board shall elect three road commissioners, each of whom shall be an elector of said county, and shall reside in one of the stone road-districts thereof.
That said commissioners shall be known as the “ Board of Saginaw Road Commissioners,” and as such board, subject to the provisions of this act, shall have the care, charge, and control of the construction, improvement, preservation, and maintenance of such roads as the board of supervisors shall determine to construct and improve.
That the board of supervisors shall have power, and it shall be the duty of said board, to determine what part of the roads declared to be State roads shall be improved: and thereupon it shall be the duty of said commissioners to prepare plans for such work, to advertise for proposals for such work, and enter into contracts therefor.
' That said commissioners shall meet in the month of June in each year, and determine the amount of tax, in the opinion of said commissioners, necessary to be raised for such year in each of said road-districts for the construction,. extension, care, preservation, and maintenance of the roads constructed or improved under the act, not exceeding a certain limit fixed by the act; that said commissioners shall record such determination, and cause a copy of the same to be presented to the board of supervisors at the October' meeting, and said board shall order the same, or so much thereof as said supervisors may deem necessary for the purposes aforesaid, to be levied upon the taxable property of said road-districts respectively; that the- tax so ordered shall be assessed upon [298]*298said road-districts respectively, and collected as other taxes, paid into the county treasury, and used for the construction, improvement, care, etc., of the roads within, said districts.
That the money shall be drawn from the county treasury upon orders issued by the board of road commissioners.
That said road commissioners shall have full charge of the construction, reconstruction, improvement, and extension of said roads, subject to the direction of the board of supervisors, as in the act provided, and shall keep the same in repair, and for that purpose may employ such agents, assistants, and workmen as may be necessary therefor.
The title of this act is—
“An act to provide for the construction and maintenance of stone, gravel, macadamized, and other roads in the county of Saginaw, and to raise the money therefore

This act cannot be sustained.

1. It seeks to divest certain local officers, recognized as such and provided for by the Constitution, of the' functions of their offices, and to confer those functions upon a board, appointed by a power removed from that locality, and not responsible to local authority.

The functions of township officers who are continued by Constitutional enactment are as clearly within the contemplation and protection of the Constitution as are the officers themselves, and the Legislature has no more power to deprive those officers of their authority, and confer that authority upon officers not of local selection, than it has to abolish the offices. It is just as essential to local self-government that the functions of elective-officers be preserved to such officers as that the right of election be protected; indeed, it is the local management of local concerns, by and through the medium of officers of their own selection, that is sought to be protected. Strip the officers of a municipality of their functions, and you rob the municipality of its vitality.

[299]*299Section 1 of article 11 of the Constitution provides that there shall be elected annually, in each organized township, one commissioner of highways, and one overseer of highways for each road-district. Section 11 of article 10 provides that the board of supervisors of each county may provide for laying out highways. In People v. Commissioners, 15 Mich. 347, 351, Mr. Justice Cooley, speaking for the Court, says, regarding this last provision:

“This section has never been construed by the Legislature as taking from the township authorities the control over roads which they before possessed, and all the statutes which have since been passed on the subject have provided for the continued exercise of that control.”

Mr. Justice Campbell, in Hubbard v. Springwells, 25 Mich. 153, 156, says:

“This street, being a public highway, was by law put under the charge of the local authorities. The Constitution requires an election every year of a township commissioner of highways, and of an overseer of highways for every highway district. Their powers were subject to legislative modifications, but no legislation could abolish the offices, or take away all their functions. The highways in each district must be, to some extent at least, subject to an overseer elected by the people. As we held in the case of the Detroit Board of Public Works (24 Mich. 44), the regulation of the'township affairs, legally concerning none but the people of the town, cannot be lawfully vested in any officers imposed upon the township from without. These commissioners, not appointed by or responsible to the township or its people, are empowered to assume exclusive charge of a town highway, turn it into a toll-road, and raise money, and impose taxes in the township, to complete and repair the road.

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

Related

Wilmington Medical Center, Inc. v. Bradford
382 A.2d 1338 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1978)
In re the Petition for the Laying Out of Cypress Farms Ditch
180 A. 536 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1935)
Fremont Canning Co. v. Waters
176 N.W. 577 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1920)
Pryzbylowski v. Board of Commissioners of the Poor
154 N.W. 117 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Loomis v. Mack
150 N.W. 370 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Vernor v. Secretary of State
146 N.W. 338 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Blomquist v. Board of County Commissioners
137 P. 174 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1913)
Meehan v. Shields
107 P. 835 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)
Village of Fairview v. City of Detroit
113 N.W. 368 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)
Attorney General ex rel. Brotherton v. Common Council
148 Mich. 71 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)
Turner v. Coffin
74 P. 962 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1903)
Shearer v. Board of Supervisors
87 N.W. 789 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
Moreland v. Millen
85 N.W. 882 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
Board of State Tax Commissioners v. Board of Assessors
83 N.W. 209 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1900)
Dietrich v. Schremms
75 N.W. 618 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1898)
City of Lansing v. Board of State Auditors
111 Mich. 327 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)
Detroit Citizens' Street Railway Co. v. City of Detroit
68 N.W. 304 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)
State ex rel. Wolfe v. Bronson
21 S.W. 1125 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 N.W. 862, 89 Mich. 295, 1891 Mich. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davies-v-board-of-supervisors-mich-1891.