Pape v. Township of Benton

103 N.W. 591, 140 Mich. 165, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 534
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMay 12, 1905
DocketDocket No. 24
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 103 N.W. 591 (Pape v. Township of Benton) 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
Pape v. Township of Benton, 103 N.W. 591, 140 Mich. 165, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 534 (Mich. 1905).

Opinion

McAlvay, J.

The plaintiff, Charles Pape, doing business as the Fleming Manufacturing Company, sued defendant township in assumpsit upon two certain agreements made and entered into June 12, 1899, and June 30, 1898, respectively, such agreements claiming to be contracts of purchase and sale made under and by virtue of sections 4193-4197, inclusive, of Compiled Laws of 1897. This is Act No. 173 of the Public Acts of 1897, “An act to authorize commissioners of highways in townships to purchase tools and machinery for making roads in certain cases, and prescribe the manner of payment therefor and the use and care of such machines.” Section 1 provides for the purchase by highway commissioners, upon request of a majority of the overseers of highways of such township with the assent of the township board, of certain tools, road machines, etc., for the use of the township. The contracts sued upon were entered into pursuant to section 2 of said act. To properly understand the questions volved in this case, it is necessary to quote the entire section.

“Sec. 2. That the commissioner of highways may, upon the request of one or more overseers of the highway districts of their township, contract for and purchase for such district or districts, upon credit or otherwise, if a majority of the taxpayers of one or more highway districts in any township, representing more than one-half of the taxable property in such district, or in each of such districts, to be ascertained by the last preceding assessment roll and certified to as such by the township clerk of the town, petition the commissioner of such township therefor, such commissioner may contract for the purchase upon credit or otherwise a road machine for the use of such district or districts, which implement shall be used, cared for and owned by such district or districts jointly. Such implement shall be paid for out of the highway tax of the district or districts for which they are purchased,. [167]*167and may be paid for in annual installments, not exceeding five years. If purchased for more than one district, the amount paid by each shall be in proportion to the amount of highway tax paid by each; a copy of the note or contract issued upon the purchase of such implement shall be filed in the office of the township clerk of the township in which such road district or districts are situated, and it shall be the duty of said township clerk to present a statement of the sum due there'on to the township board at each annual meeting thereafter for the audit of the township claims and charges, and the township board shall audit such sum and certify the same to the board of supervisors of the county. Not more than one-half of the highway tax of any district shall be applied in payment therefor in any one year. The portion of the tax so applied shall be required to be paid in money, and assessed and levied upon the property of such district or districts an'd collected in the same manner as other township charges are assessed, levied, and collected, except that the amount thereof shall be put in a separate column upon the tax roll, and the board of supervisors of the county shall cause the sum so certified by the township board to be levied upon the taxable property of such highway district or districts, such commissioner of highways shall, with the assistance of the overseer of highways in any road district which is to be charged with the payment of such machine,.after the completion of the assessment roll and ten days before the meeting of the board of supervisors of the county, make and deliver to the supervisor of such township a list of the persons in such district or districts who are named in the last assessment roll as being liable to assessment for taxes to be levied for the payment of such road machine.”

The plaintiff declared specially upon these contracts and upon the common counts. Defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice that the required petitions did not conform to the provisions of the statute as to the number of signing taxpayers and the amount of taxable property represented. Upon the trial before the court with a jury plaintiff offered the petitions with the contracts based thereon in evidence. An objection was made that the declaration stated no cause of action, and upon the facts claimed no recovery could be had in an action at law. [168]*168This objection was overruled, and the petitions and contracts were admitted in evidence, and proof made that there was due and unpaid $50.10 on one contract and $277.67 on the other, making $327.77, the amount claimed in suit. Defendant then renewed the above objection, which was sustained, the court holding that mandamus, and not a suit at law, was the proper remedy for plaintiff in this case. A verdict was directed for defendant. The case is here by writ of error by plaintiff.

The following are the contracts sued upon:

“Exhibit A.
“No. 9976.
“To the Commissioner of Highways of the Township of Benton, County of Berrien, State of Michigan:
“We, the undersigned overseers and taxpayers of road districts Nos. 2 and 3 of said township, do hereby petition and request you to contract and purchase for our road districts one improved Fleming Road Machine at the agreed price of two hundred and twenty-five dollars, with six per cent, interest on deferred payments, to be owned, used and paid for out of the road tax of said above road districts, in the manner prescribed and set forth in section 2 of a law enacted by the legislature of the State of Michigan, and approved by the governor of said State, May 29, 1897, to take effect immediately, entitled, ‘ An act to authorize commissioners of highways in townships to purchase tools and machinery for making roads in certain cases, and prescribe the manner of payment therefor, and the use and care of such machines.’ The said districts now having a number of days’ work levied shown by figures set opposite the respective names of overseers hereunto attached.

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

Related

Attorney General v. Bruce
182 N.W. 155 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1921)
Spiegel v. Barrett
155 N.W. 456 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Waterman-Waterbury Co. v. School District No. 4
150 N.W. 104 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Indiana Road Machine Co. v. Keeney
110 N.W. 530 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 N.W. 591, 140 Mich. 165, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pape-v-township-of-benton-mich-1905.