Riker v. Oakland Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Riker v. Oakland Circuit Judge

101 N.W. 229, 138 Mich. 181, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 820

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1904

DocketCalendar No. 20,740

StatusPublished

This text of 101 N.W. 229 (Riker v. Oakland Circuit Judge) 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

Riker v. Oakland Circuit Judge, 101 N.W. 229, 138 Mich. 181, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 820 (Mich. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). We find it unnecessary to determine the legal rights of the parties. Municipalities, although through their officers they may at times let contracts not in accordance with the legal rights of the parties, ought not, except under very extraordinary circumstances, to be restrained by the courts. The rights of the public, so far as the remedy by injunction is concerned, are paramount to the rights of individuals who claim to stand in the position of contractors. Prompt action on the part of municipal officers is, as in this case, essential to secure to the public the speedy accomplishment of those things necessary for their use and protection. If Mr. Hoffman had a legal contract by reason of his bid and its acceptance, he has a clear remedy at law. This as well as other courts has denied the remedy by injunction in such cases. City of Detroit v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 128 Mich. 438; Chandler v. Detroit Board of Education, 104 Mich. 292; Riehl v. City of San Jose, 101 Cal. 442; People v. Campbell, 72 N. Y. 496.

The circuit judge was in error in issuing the injunction. The writ will therefore issue as prayed.

Moore, C. J., and Montgomery and Hooker, JJ., concurred. Carpenter, J., took no part in the decision.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). We find it unnecessary to determine the legal rights of the parties. Municipalities, although through their officers they may at times let contracts not in accordance with the legal rights of the parties, ought not, except under very extraordinary circumstances, to be restrained by the courts. The rights of the public, so far as the remedy by injunction is concerned, are paramount to the rights of individuals who claim to stand in the position of contractors. Prompt action on the part of municipal officers is, as in this case, essential to secure to the public the speedy accomplishment of those things necessary for their use and protection. If Mr. Hoffman had a legal contract by reason of his bid and its acceptance, he has a clear remedy at law. This as well as other courts has denied the remedy by injunction in such cases. City of Detroit v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 128 Mich. 438; Chandler v. Detroit Board of Education, 104 Mich. 292; Riehl v. City of San Jose, 101 Cal. 442; People v. Campbell, 72 N. Y. 496.

The circuit judge was in error in issuing the injunction. The writ will therefore issue as prayed.

Moore, C. J., and Montgomery and Hooker, JJ., concurred. Carpenter, J., took no part in the decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.W. 229, 138 Mich. 181, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riker-v-oakland-circuit-judge-mich-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack