DocketNumber: Docket No. 109
Citation Numbers: 170 Mich. 344
Judges: Bird, Blair, Brooke, McAlvay, Moore, Ostrander, Steere, Stone
Filed Date: 5/31/1912
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/8/2022
Defendant seeks to review, upon writ of error, a judgment rendered against him in a suit brought by plaintiffs in justice’s court in assumpsit to recover from defendant for material, work, and labor claimed to have been furnished for the construction of 300 feet of sidewalk at 6 cents per foot, built in the village of Eord, Wayne county, in the year 1897. Upon the trial in the circuit court, at the close of plaintiffs’ case, defendant by his counsel moved to direct a verdict for defendant, stating the ground of his motion. After some colloquy between court and counsel, not necessary to be quoted, a verdict was directed for plaintiffs, to which ruling defendant excepted. Upon this directed verdict the judgment was entered.
The facts in the case do not appear to be in dispute. Plaintiffs entered into a written contract with the village of Eord to furnish all material and labor and build. and construct, at their own cost and expense, certain cement crosswalks, alley crossings, intersections, and sidewalks within said village according to certain specifications, for the following prices: 12 cents for sidewalks and intersec
The theory of plaintiffs was that they could recover from him upon an implied contract, that no notice was required other than his knowledge of the fact that the sidewalk was constructed in front of his lots. The village of Ford is not a party to this suit, and has never notified or required defendant to build such sidewalk, or determined that he should pay the whole or a part of the expense of constructing it.
Defendant assigns error upon the refusal of the court to grant his motion to direct a verdict in his favor, and for directing a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The village of Ford is incorporated under the general law for the incorporation of villages in this State.
The material provisions of this statute relative to sidewalks, giving the municipality authority to contruct and to require abutting owners to construct and maintain sidewalks within such villages, briefly stated, are as follows: The council is given control of all sidewalks in the public streets and alleys of the village, and may prescribe the grade thereof and change the same when deemed necessary. It is given power to build, maintain, and keep in repair sidewalks and crosswalks in the public streets and alleys, to charge the expense of constructing and maintaining such sidewalks upon the lots and premises adjacent to and abutting upon such walks, also authority to require the owners and occupants of lots and premises to
Power is given the council by ordinance or resolution to require abutting owners and occupants to remove snow, ice, and all other obstructions from such walks:
‘1 Provided, that the council may by a two-thirds vote of all the trustees élect, provide by ordinance for the rebuilding, maintaining, and keeping in repair of all sidewalks within the village, and for the removing of all ice and snow therefrom, and for keeping the same free from incumbrances, and pay the expense thereof from the general street fund, or from the street district fund.” [1 Comp. Laws, § 2777.]
This statute makes provision for the enforcement and payment to the village for expense incurred by it on account of anything done relative to sidewalk construction, etc., which was chargeable to owners or occupants, by providing for a special assessment of such expense, with 10 per cent, penalty upon abutting premises to be collected as other village taxes or in an action of assumpsit against the owner or occupant. There is also a provision giving the council general supervision and control of all sidewalks within the village, with like authority as is given by general laws of the State. No village ordinances appear to have been enacted upon the subject. The legislative plan and intent in this legislation is not complex. It may be said to have provided that the municipality controls the sidewalks, that it could construct them and could require the lots benefited to bear the expense, or it could require the owners to build and pay for them, or by a two-thirds vote lay such part of this burden as seemed proper upon certain funds.
The judgement is reversed, and no new trial granted.