Ellis v. Common Council of Grand Rapids

82 N.W. 244, 123 Mich. 567, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 864
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 3, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 82 N.W. 244 (Ellis v. Common Council of Grand Rapids) 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
Ellis v. Common Council of Grand Rapids, 82 N.W. 244, 123 Mich. 567, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 864 (Mich. 1900).

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The first section of the act (No. 205, Pub. Acts 1897) gives preference for appointment and employment to honorably-discharged Union soldiers, sailors, and marines of the late Rebellion, in “all public departments of municipal corporations, and upon the public works of the State.” The second section provides that no such veteran “holding an office or employment in the public works of any city or town shall be removed,” etc. The learned counsel for relator insist that the term “public works,” in section 2, includes public departments. We cannot concur in this view- A “public department” is defined as “a division of official duties or functions; a branch of government; a distinct part of a governmental organization: as, the legislative, executive, and judicial departments; the department of state, of the treasury, etc.” The term “public works” is defined as “ all fixed works constructed for public use, as railways, docks, canals, waterworks, roads, etc.” Cent. Diet. The statute recognizes the distinction. Similar statutes in other States also use the two terms. It seems clear that the legislature did not understand that “public works” meant the same as “public departments.” The provisions of this act are penal in their character, and must be strictly construed. Section 2 of the act alone is before us for construction. Its language is p expressly limited to ‘ ‘ office or employment in the public works of any city or town.” Courts are not at liberty to extend this penal statute so as to include public departments. This would amount to judicial legislation, rather than interpretation. This disposal of the case renders it unnecessary to discuss the other questions raised.

Judgment reversed. No costs will be allowed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Leelanau County Sheriff v. Kiessel
824 N.W.2d 576 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2012)
Perlera v. Vining Disposal Service, Inc.
713 N.E.2d 1017 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1999)
Beadling v. Governor of Michigan
308 N.W.2d 269 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1981)
Wallace Stevens, Inc. v. LaFourche Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 3
323 So. 2d 794 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1975)
State Ex Rel. Day v. King County
312 P.2d 637 (Washington Supreme Court, 1957)
State Ex Rel. Wilkinson v. Murphy
186 So. 487 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
Abt v. Wilcox
249 N.W. 483 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1933)
Swantush v. City of Detroit
241 N.W. 265 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1932)
Demeter Land Co. v. Florida Public Service Co.
128 So. 402 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Southern Surety Co. v. Standard Slag Co.
159 N.E. 559 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1927)
State v. A. H. Read Co.
240 P. 208 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1925)
Koeper v. Detroit Street Railway Commission
193 N.W. 221 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
Ibold v. City of Cincinnati
21 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 155 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1916)
People v. . Crane
108 N.E. 427 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Penn Iron Co. v. William R. Trigg Co.
56 S.E. 329 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 N.W. 244, 123 Mich. 567, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-common-council-of-grand-rapids-mich-1900.