« 이전계속 »
dence considered, and held, to support her contention.
Stevens v. Stevens, 438. 3. The defendant husband was not entitled to an accounting,
where he abandoned the farm mortgaged and went to Canada, leaving his wife in possession of the farm and some of the personal property, in order to escape pressing obligations due to creditors and other mortgagees, and where he borrowed money from her from time to time and it appeared that the question of the amount obtained by the complainant from the farm was involved in an
action on the law side of the court. Id. 439. 4. A foreclosure bill may be maintained in the name of the
grantee of real property, conveyed by warranty deed as security for advances to be made or credit extended by his principal or employer after the date of its execution; such grantee being agent for a nonresident partnership doing brokerage business in Michigan and other States.
Bennett v. Clark, 690. 5. Nor was the bill multifarious because it asked for a de
ficiency judgment and for foreclosure of a deed given as
security. Id. See APPEAL AND ERROR (7); EQUITY (3); GIFTS (2); PLEAD
ING (1); TENDER; USURY (2); VENDOR AND PURCHASER (7). MOTIONS-See AFFIDAVITS (1); EQUITY (2); QUO WARRANTO. MULTIFARIOUSNESS–See MORTGAGES (5); PLEADING (2). MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
1. By the terms of the charter of the city of Grand Rapids,
the common council is composed of the mayor and aldermen; the common council is constituted judge of the election and qualifications of its members, and the action of the common council in so determining is final. No change in the charter was effected by the amendment of 1913, providing for nonpartisan municipal ele ns. Sinclair
v. Com. Council of City of Grand Rapids, 186. 2. A recount of the votes for mayor will not be ordered by
mandamus in proceedings brought by the candidate declared to be defeated by the board of canvassers: the remedy of the claimant is exclusively in the common council as elected at the same election as that in which the mayor was chosen; and the rule was not changed by a provision of the amendment that, in cases of contested election for any office, the contest shall be decided by the council as nearly as may be according to the laws of the State regulating election contests, and a certificate of election shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated. Id. 3. The passage of Act No. 283, Pub. Acts 1909 (2 How. Stat.
[2d Ed.] $ 2173 et seq.), which provides for the so-called MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-Continued.
county road system, and creates a board of county road commissioners to have authority over grading, draining, and constructing roads, the construction of bridges and culverts; enacting, further, that “they shall have all the authority in respect to such roads, bridges, and culverts which is vested in the highway officers in townships," etc.; also, enacting that townships and unincorporated villages shall possess the authority to build, repair and preserve sidewalks, was not intended to make counties that adopt the system liable for defects in sidewalks situated in an unincorporated village. Ferguson v. County of Mus
kegon, 335. 4. Under Act No. 279, Pub. Acts 1909, as amended by Act No.
203, Pub. Acts 1911 and Act No. 5, Pub. Acts 1913, an amendment to the charter of the city of Detroit, adopted by the vote of the people, establishing a system of civil service as to all officers, commissions and departments of the city and prohibiting the discharge of employees for political reasons, took effect when certified copies of the enactment and the vote for and against it were filed with the secretary of State and county clerk; i. e., on May 3, 1913. See section 24 of Act No. 5, Pub. Acts 1913.
Grobbel v. Board of Water Com'rs of Detroit, 364. 5. Although the board of water commissioners, created by
special act of the legislature, was not embraced within the provisions of the city charter and is a distinct entity, the provisions of the Constitution, sections 20 and 21, art. 8, grant plenary power to the electors of local municipal bodies over their local affairs, and such civil
service provisions were valid. Id. 6. Where the civil service amendment was adopted at the
spring election, on April 7, 1913, and the certified copies required by section 24 of Act No. 5, Pub. Acts 1913, were filed with the proper officials on May 3d, the employees of the board of water commissioners of the city of Detroit were affected and brought within the law on the 3d day of May, although no commission as provided for by the amendment had yet been appointed, and an employee who was discharged by the commissioners on the 6th of May was entitled to invoke the benefit of the civil service law: mandamus will issue to require the board to rescind such
resolution discharging thë relator. Id. 365. 7. An ordinance of the city of Detroit providing that the
department of buildings shall have power, after notice and a hearing, to stop the construction, alteration, etc., of any building which violates the restrictions of the ordinance, and that the department may apply to the court to restrain the further violation of its terms, authorizes an injunction at the instance of the department as if the structure had been first declared to be a public nuisance. Building Com'n of Detroit v. Kunin, 604.
8. Such ordinance is not invalid because it prescribes what
percentage of a lot may be occupied with a tenement, and prescribes the size of the yard at the rear: the restrictions being for the benefit of the community as a whole
and of the adjacent property. Id. 9. The presumption being that an ordinance is valid, the duty
of establishing its invalidity rests on the party who at
tacks it. Id. 605. 10. The court has no right to invade the province of the legis
lature, and is required, if it can consistently do so, to give an ordinance such a construction as will sustain it: the power to declare an enactment invalid is limited to cases in which it is clearly made to appear to be unrea
sonable or oppressive in its operation. Id. 11. Mere evidence that some unreasonable result occurs in an
individual case is not ground sufficient to invalidate an
ordinance. Id. 12. Complainant building commission was not estopped from
maintaining an injunction bill to prevent the erection of an apartment building not in conformity with the build. ing code, although it had granted a permit to construct the building where the ordinance did not require the issuance of a permit for the erection of a tenement occupied by three or more families who do cooking, etc., on
the premises. Id. See COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (2); WATERS AND WATER
MURDER—See CRIMINAL LAW (5, 9, 11).
1. The name Cross Brothers, adopted and used by two broth
ers named Cross engaged in business as copartners, is not an assumed name that must be registered under Act No. 101, Pub. Acts 1907 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.) 8 2626), requiring the filing of a sworn certificate of membership,
etc., with the county clerk. Cross v. Leonard, 24. 2. The name David S. Zemon & Company, employed by a co
partnership composed of said Zemon and another, is not a fictitious or assumed name, requiring registration with the county clerk and a certificate of membership under Act No. 101, Pub. Acts 1907 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.) 8 2626 et seq.). Zemon v. Trim, 130.
NECESSITY-See HighWAYS AND STREETS (1).
1. Where the testimony, in a negligence case, tended to show
that the decedent, a minor of about 7 years of age, atNEGLIGENCE-Continued.
tempted to climb upon the side of a loaded wagon driven by a servant of the defendant, that the conveyance was going rapidly, but the driver did not see the child trying to climb on the wagon and stopped the team as soon as he saw the deceased fall, that the team was going down hill and there was no evidence that he observed the dangerous proximity of decedent, the trial court properly directed a verdict for defendant. Eichkern v. Park Brew
ing Co., 1. 2. And when it was apparent that the reason for the failure
of defendants' contractor to correct certain defects pointed out by the architect was that they had paid him in full and he had become insolvent, the architect could not be charged with the deficiencies and was entitled to recover his compensation notwithstanding them. Johnson v.
O'Neill, 327. 3. 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. Bacon v. Candler, 372. 4. 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. Id. 5. 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. Id.
LORD AND TENANT (1); LOGS AND LOGGING (2); MASTER AND
RAILROADS (1, 2); STREET RAILWAYS; TRIAL (6).
14); DAMAGES (3).
NONSUPPORT-See DIVORCE (5).
TIONS (1, 3, 4); DEEDS (3); INSURANCE (2, 3, 7).
1. It is a nuisance which equity will require to be abated to
sink or build in the ground steel tanks of a capacity of 10,000 gallons for the storage of gasoline, in a residence district and about 11 feet from complainant's house, on property belonging to a laundry and dry-cleaning plant
of the defendant. Whittemore v. Baxter Laundry Co., 564. 2. Any unwarrantable, unreasonable or unlawful use of
property, real or personal, such as operates to injure adjoining premises, is a nuisance which will render the owner or possessor liable for damages arising therefrom.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (7). NUNC PRO TUNC—See TRIAL (5). OPENING DEFAULT-See DEFAULT. OPERATION OF CARS-See STREET RAILWAYS (1, 2). OPTIONS_See USURY (2). ORAL CONTRACT–See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (3). ORDER OF PROOF-See EVIDENCE (14). ORDINANCES-See INJUNCTION (1); MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
(7-12). PAROL EVIDENCE RULE–See EVIDENCE (10). PARTIES–See BILLS AND NOTES (12); ELECTION OF REMEDIES;
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (3); MECHANICS' LIENS (3); MORTGAGES
(4); MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (3); PLEADING (1); STATES. PARTNERSHIP_See NAMES.
PART PERFORMANCE-See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (3).
PENSIONS-See SOLDIERS' HOME.
PERSONAL INJURIES–See DAMAGES (1); MASTER AND SERV
ANT; MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (3); NEGLIGENCE (3); STREET
RAILWAYS (1, 4, 7).
1. On a demurrer to complainant's foreclosure bill, the objec
tion that a third defendant, who did not file a demurrer or join in that of the defendants, was improperly joined as a party, could not be considered, for the reason that the point concerned only the defendant who did not
demur or object. Michigan Nat. Bank v. Hill, 7. 2. The ground of multifariousness set up in a demurrer is