force of the law itself as pre-existent to the required appointments. One month is set aside within which to establish the machinery necessary to execute the provisions already operative. And finally, one of the expressed objects of the law, the right of all existing employees to retain their positions' in its inception bears no necessary relation to the future time when commissioners may be appointed. The conclusion seems irresistible that the civil service law was in force from and after May 3, 1913.

"The second proposition urged by the respondent, to the effect that the board of water commissioners is not included within the provisions of the civil service legislation, grows out of these considerations. The board is a distinct corporate entity. (See Laws of 1853, p. 180, § 1; also chapter 21, § 623, of the compilation of 1904 of the charter and acts of the legislature relating to or affecting the city of Detroit.) The act establishing this board is not embraced within the charter of the city. The title of the civil service law states the purpose of the law to be the amendment of the charter by adding to it a new chapter. Neither in the title nor in the body of the law is any specific reference made to the water board act. Therefore, it is argued, considering the distinctive legal character of the board, and keeping in mind both the purpose of the civil service measure as expressed in the title and as declared in the terms of the enactment, the board must be held to be not within its scope.

"The precise legal position of the board due to its status as a distinct corporate body has been determined in an analogous case. O'Leary v. Board of Fire & Water Com'rs, 79 Mich. 281 (44 N. W. 608. 7 L. R. A. 170, 19 Am. St. Rep. 169). Justice CAMPBELL, speaking for the court in that case, said of the defendant, which was a body of like corporate functions with this respondent:

""While it is a local corporation, created to serve municipal purposes, it is in no sense a municipal corporation, within the legal meaning of that term. It has been settled in this State that there can be no municipal corporation that is not the direct representative of the people of its locality [citing cases]. In 181 Mich.-24.

*

several of these, as in other cases, the doctrine has been recognized that the establishment of corporations to act as municipal boards or agencies did not give them any governmental municipal authority. The incorporation of water and fire boards appointed by the city is only a convenient way of removing that business from the constant interference of the ordinary city authorities, with such safeguards as are deemed best for that purpose.'

"That an agency such as the water board is thus defined to be is subject to the direct legislative power of the electors becomes clear from an examination of the history of the grants of that power to the people. Such an examination is also essential to test the soundness of the objection that the board is not reached by the terms of the civil service measure.

"A departure from the former method of granting charters to cities was made by the Constitution of 1909. By sections 20 and 21 of article 8 of that instrument, the legislature was required to provide a general law for the incorporation of cities, and the electors of each city, acting under such general law, were given plenary power, subject to the Constitution and the general laws of the State, over their local affairs. The debates of the constitutional convention demonstrate that the purpose of the framers was to vest in the people of municipalities full legislative control over their own problems of local self-government.

"In order to amplify the powers thus conferred, section 21 was amended by the people at the election in November, 1912, and now reads as follows:

"Under such general laws, the electors of each city and vil lage shall have power and authority to frame, adopt and amend its charter, and to amend an existing charter of the city or village heretofore granted or passed by the legislature for the government of the city or village and, through its regularly constituted authority, to pass all laws and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, subject to the Constitution and general laws of the State.'

"One of the chief 'municipal concerns' is the procurement of a water supply. And one of the essentials of urban life is the proper administration of that supply when procured. Thus the right of the voters of the city to legislate upon the administrative

methods of the respondent, one of the mere agencies of the city for carrying on its municipal affairs, is obvious.

"Did the voters effect such legislation by the adoption of the civil service law? They have added a chapter to the charter establishing a system for the employment and discharge of 'all officers, clerks and subordinates of all offices, departments and commissions of said city.' They were within their clear right in so doing. They have employed language which is not only broad, but so comprehensive as to include necessarily such a department as the water board.

"No obligation rested upon the voters to enumerate the affected departments. It was competent for them to express their will in language so inclusive that by necessary implication it should embrace all departments. And that was the plan pursued. There being no legal obstacle to prevent that course, and the authority to sustain it being ample, under the broad constitutional grants made available to the people by the legislative enactments of 1909, 1911, and 1913, first referred to, there is no difficulty in giving effect to the purpose sought in the enactment of the civil service law. That purpose, among others, was to add to the charter a new chapter by which such department as the water board should place the employment and discharge of its subordinates upon a civil service basis. The power so to do being ample, the method employed being appropriate, and the end sought being both clear and free from invalidity, the will of the voters must be made effective.

"A writ of mandamus will issue commanding the respondent promptly to rescind its resolution by which the relator was discharged, and to reinstate him in the employment held by him at the time of its passage."

See the case of Philbrick v. Dust, 178 Mich. 605 (146 N. W. 175).

The action of the court below is affirmed. As the question involved is a public one, no costs are allowed.

BROOKE, KUHN, BIRD, and STEERE, JJ.. concurred with MOORE, J.

OSTRANDER, J. (dissenting). In my opinion, the electorate of the city of Detroit has not the power to amend (by implication or otherwise) an act of the legislature, other than the charter, which sets up and defines the duties and powers of a municipal board such as the respondent is.

MCALVAY, C. J., and STONE, J., concurred with OsTRANDER, J.

BACON v. CANDLER.

1. NEGLIGENCE-STREETS-LADDERS, USE of.

It was a question of fact for the jury whether defendants' servants were guilty of negligence, in view of the weather conditions disclosed and known to them, in leaving a ladder unguarded or unfastened against the side of a building in the public street so that the wind blew it down upon a pedestrian.

2. SAME

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR-MASTER AND SERVANT. A copartnership that furnished labor and materials for general repair work and painting upon a building or store, having submitted bids in response to an advertisement therefor and having control of the work subject to the supervision of general contractors to see to the proper execution of the work, was not a servant of the general contractor but an independent contractor, liable for the negligence of its employees.1

3. SAME.

Nor would the fact that at the moment of the accident the employee was engaged in some work that the general contract did not cover, and for which the owner had agreed to pay extra compensation directly to the defendants, relieve them of their liability for such negligence.

'On the general question who are independent contractors, see notes in 65 L. R. A. 445 and 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 371.

Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Submitted April 27, 1914. (Docket No. 136.) Decided July 24, 1914.

Case by Elbridge F. Bacon against James D. Candler and George V. Candler, copartners as J. D. Candler & Company, and Vinton Company, a corporation, for personal injuries. Judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

N. Calvin Bigelow, for appellant.

Lodge & Brown, for appellees Candler.

BIRD, J. The injury for which plaintiff seeks to recover in this case occurred while he was walking south on the west side of Woodward avenue, in the city of Detroit. When he reached the southwest corner of the intersection of Woodward avenue and State street, a ladder which was leaning against the Siegel store blew over and struck him on the head, causing injuries of a serious nature. The ladder was an ordinary one, 14 feet long, and was being used by an employee of defendants Candler & Co. in constructing or repairing the galvanized iron cornice which covered the show windows on the State street side of the Siegel store. The employee who was using the ladder left it for a moment for some purpose which is not disclosed. The neglect which the defendants were charged with was the act of leaving the ladder leaning against the building with no one in charge to prevent it from falling onto pedestrians traveling on said streets. Defendant Vinton Company had the contract to make general repairs on the Siegel store. The contract for doing the cornice work over the show windows was sublet by it to defendants Candler & Co. Upon the trial plaintiff discontinued as to the Vinton Company, leaving Candler & Co. the sole defendants. At the conclusion of the proofs, the trial court was of