TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Auditor General v. Hoffman

Auditor Gen. v. Hoffman, 89 N.W. 348 (Mich. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 4, 1902
Judges
Grant, Hooker, Long, Montgomery, Moore
Citations
89 N.W. 348129 Mich. 5411902 Mich. LEXIS 499
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Ordinances — Reasonableness—Construction op Sidewalk. An ordinance requiring a lot owner to build a sidewalk within five days after notice, and, on his failure to do so, authorizing the city officials to build it, and imposing a tax on him for the cost, is void for unreasonableness.
Summary
Appeal from St. Clair; Whipple, J. Petition by Roscoe D. Dix, auditor general, for the sale of lands delinquent for taxes: On objections filed by John M. Hoffman. From a decree for contestant, petitioner appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Grant

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Grant, J.

The tax which the circuit judge set aside in this case was imposed under the same charter and ordinance that were before the court in City of Port Huron v. Jenkinson, 77 Mich. 414 ( 43 N. W. 923 , 6 L. R. A. 54, 18 Am. St. Rep. 409 ), in which the penal provisions of both the charter and the ordinance are held to be absolutely void. In that case a notice was given under section 1 of the ordinance to construct the sidewalk within 10 days. It was there said:

“No legislative or municipal body has the power to impose the duty of performing an act upon any person which it is impossible for him to perform, and then make his nonperformance of such a duty a crime.”

For the same reason the legislature cannot impose a duty upon the citizen, give him an insufficient time to perform it, and then authorize some one else to perform the duty for him, and impose a tax upon him for the cost. The duty to construct a sidewalk is purely statutory, and when such duty is imposed upon a citizen he is entitled to reasonable time within which to perform it. From the language above quoted it is obvious that the court held a 10-day notice unreasonable. In this case section 7 of the ordinance is in direct conflict with section 1, in that it requires the lot owner to build the sidewalk “within five days from the date of the notice,” while section 1 provides for a notice of 10 days. The notice in this case was served under section 7, and was a notice to build a stone or cement sidewalk not less than 4 feet wide within 5 days. Such a provision is unreasonable and void under the decision above cited.

Decree is affirmed.

Hooker, C. J., Moore and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1910: 11912: 11917: 119102026peak 1910 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Farlin v. Sanborn126 N.W. 634 (Mich. 1910)
  2. Bateman v. Case136 N.W. 590 (Mich. 1912)
  3. Laberteaux v. Gale162 N.W. 968 (Mich. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Laberteaux v. Gale162 N.W. 968 (Mich. 1917)
  2. Bateman v. Case136 N.W. 590 (Mich. 1912)
  3. Farlin v. Sanborn126 N.W. 634 (Mich. 1910)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
City of Port Huron v. Jenkinson, 6 L.R.A. 54 (Mich. 1889) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list