Слике страница
PDF
ePub

.

[ocr errors]

Page

Page Thomas v. Miller (Minn.). 358 Warren v. Barsby (Neb.).

314 Thompson v. Thompson (Wis.). ... 671 Warren v. Boaru of Registration Thorsen v. Perkins (Minn.).. 557 (Mich.).

553 Tibbetts v. Burster (lo.)... 707 Watkins. Harris v. (Dak.).

536 Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ry. Co., Wil- Watson, Denham v. (Web.)... 308 lis v. (Mich.)... 205 Webber, State v. (10.). ...

140 Toledo, S. & M. R. Co. v. East Sag- Webster v. Bearinger (Mich.). 072 inaw & St. C. R. Co. (Mich.).... 436 Webster, Territory v. (Dak.).

535 Tousley v. Board of Education Welborn v. Eskey (Neb.).... 959 (Minn.).. 509 Welborn v. Eskey (Neb.).

960 Town of Richmond, Schriber v. Welch v. Abbott (Wis.)

223 (Wis.)...... 644 Welch v. Hull (Mich.).

797 Township of Alcona, Fletcher v. Welch v. Marks (Minn.).

611 (Mich.)..... 36 Weld, State v. (Minn.)

561 Township of Lee, Eddy v. (Mich.).. 792 Welles v. Newsom (ló.).

105 Township of Otsego Lake v. Kirsten West, State v. (Minn.)....

249 (Mich.).....

26 Whitehead v. Plummer (Io.).. 709 Township of Richland, Mills v. Wightman v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. (Mich.)..... 183 Co. (Wis.).....

689 Travelers’ Ins. Co., Miller v. (Minn.) 839 Wilder, American Steam-Boiler Ins. Travis v. Skinner (Mich.)....... 234 Co. v. (Minn.). .....

... 252 Treat, Julius King Optical Co. v. Williams v. Stevens' Point Lumber (Mich.)..... 912 Co. (Wis.).

154 Trowbridge, Foster v. (Mion:).... 255 Williams, Delta Lumber Co. v. Troxel, O'Brien v. (Io.).... 704 (Mich.).

940 Truelsen, Gill v., two cases, (Minn.) 254 Williams, D. M. Osborne & Co. V. Truelsen, Lightbody v. (Minn.)..... 67 (Minn.)..

165 Trulock v. Donahue (Io.).... 696 Willis v. Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ry. Tucker v. Lovejoy (Wis.)... 627 Co. (Mich.)

205 Tucker, State v. (Io.). .. 725 Wilson, Dolé v. (Minn.).....

161 Turck, Hicks v. (Mich.).

). .

339 | Wilson, McCormick Harvesting-MaTurner, Littlejohn v. (Wis.). 621 chine Co. v. (Minn.)...

571 Turner v. Stephenson (Mich.).. ... 735 Windle, Garmoe v. (Io.).

824

Winona & St. P. Land Co., State v. Union Pac. R. Co. v. O'Hern (Neb.) 293 (Minn.).

166 Utterson, State v. (Io.)...

139 Wisconsin, I. & N. Ry. Co., Kuhns Utterson, State v. (Io.)........... 716 v. (Io.)...

92

Wisconsin River Land Co., Finn v. Valentine, Godfrey v. (Minn.).... 163 (Wis.)...

209 Van Etten v. State (Neb.)... 289 Wisconsin R. Log-Driv. Ass'n v. D. Van Hoesen, Teachout v. (Io.)... 96 F. Comstock Lumber Co. (Wis.). . 146 Van Tassel, People v. (Mich.). 847 Wood County, State v. (Wis.)...... 381 Village of Bloomer, McGrath v. Wooden v. Wooden (Mich.).

460 (Wis.)...

585 Woods v. St. Paul & D. R. Co. Village of Ontonagon, Diamond (Min.)...

510 Match Co. v. (Mich.)..... 448 Wright v. Mahaffey (Io.)...

112 Village of Orleans v. Perry (Neb.).. 417 Wright, State v. (Neb.)

596 Vollmer v. State (Neb.)... 420 Wyatt, State v. (Io.)...

140

Wyckoff v. Horan (Minn.)..... 563 Wagner v. Wagner (Minn.).. 360 Walsh v. Byrnes (Minn.)... 831 | Yerkes v. Hadley (Dak.)...

340

For tables of Northwestern Cases in State Reports, see the colored pages at the end of the index, at the back of this volume. These take the place of all the similar tables sent with the preceding volumes.

[ocr errors]

THE

Northwestern Reporter.

VOLUME XL.

DELTA LUMBER Co. v. BOARD OF AUDITORS et al.

(Supreme Court of Michigan. October 19, 1888.) BRIDGES—LIABILITY OF COUNTY.

A county in Michigan is not required to maintain or repair a bridge, as that duty belongs to the township in which it is situated, under How. St. Mich. Ś 1445, though on two occasions, many years previously, the legislature by special act authorized the county to rebuild the bridge when destroyed by freshets, and appropriated funds and land to assist in the work. Application for mandamus.

The Delta Lumber Company presented an application for a mandamus requiring the boards of supervisors and auditors of Wayne county to maintain a bridge over the Rouge river.

Moore & Moore, for relator.

MORSE, J. Application for mandamus. The relator is a corporation existing under our laws, and has its principal office in Detroit. It is the owner of a tract of land in the township of Springwells, in Wayne county, fronting on what is known as the “Monroe Road.” Here it has a planing-mill and lumber-yard and dock, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber. A public highway runs from the city of Detroit to the city of Monroe, known as the “Monroe Road,” and between the townships of Ecorse and Spring wells it pisses over the river Rouge. This highway was originally a territorial road, and was built, constructed, and used before the year 1816, and has been, from that time until the present, and is still, used as a public road. The river Rouge is a navigable stream, and the bridge upon the Monroe road is a drawbridge. At the present time there is no public authority operating this bridge, and private parties for some time have been operating it by voluntary subscriptions. The relator claims that it is the duty of the county of Wayne to maintain and operate this bridge, and asks for a mandamus to compel such maintenance and operation. The facts in relation to the building, maintenance, and operation of this bridge in the past are as follows: About the year 1816, Solomon Sibley, Henry J. Hunt, and Benjamin Woodworth were granted a franchise for a toll-bridge over the Rouge on this road. This franchise ran 25 years from December 16, 1816. The bridge was required to be built so as to permit the passage of boats without masts, and to contain a draw, through which all vessels with masts, which could not be unshipped, ascending or descending the river, might pass. It was made the duty of the grantees of this franchise to keep the draw, and open it, when necessary, for the passage

v.40n.w.no.1-1

of such vessels. At the expiration of the 25 years the bridge was to revert to the territory. The franchise was never renewed. How long this bridge was maintained is not shown, but it was destroyed by a freshet before 1833. In that year the legislative council of the territory passed an act authorizing the .board of supervisors of Wayne county to rebuild this bridge, or erect a new one, and the act appropriated $300 to aid the county. The bridge was rebuilt about this time, and it would appear that the board of supervisors maintained the same up to the year 1837, and perhaps later. In 1848 the legislature of this state passed an act authorizing the board of auditors of Wayne county to repair or rebuild this bridge. See act No. 293, Laws 1848, pp. 432, 433. In accordance with this act, the board of auditors, July 7, 1848, entered into a contract with Giles B. Slocum for the erection of a draw-bridge at this point. The bridge was built by Slocum, and accepted April 3, 1849, on which day Slocum was paid for the same by the board of auditors. It is not shown who maintained and operated this bridge from 1849 until 1867. In 1867 the bridge was again rebuilt jointly by the townships of Springwells and Ecorse, in Wayne county, since which time it has been operated and maintained alone by the said townships until about 1886, when the township of Springwells abandoned its care of the same. The authorities of Spring wells, upon the 16th of October, 1886, notified the board of supervisors of such abandonment; and on the receipt of such notice the matter was referred by such board to its committee on roads and bridges. No further action was taken that year. October 24, 1887, the supervisors received another communication from the supervisor of Spring wells, calling their attention again to this bridge, and requesting them to take action in the premises. The board of supervisors thereupon referred the matter to the same committee, who, upon the advice of the prosecuting attorney, reported that they were unable to determine who was liable for the maintenance of the bridge, but that it was a matter of no interest to the county of Wayne. This report was adopted by the board. We have now given all the facts laid before us in the record. The respondents deny any liability upon the part of the county to maintain or operate this bridge.

We have been furnished with no brief or argument on the part of the respondents. Ilenry M. Duffield files a brief on behalf of the townships of Ecorse and Spring wells. We think the writ must be denied. It seems now to be the settled policy of this state that the care and supervision of all public highways and bridges shall be in the hands of the highway commissioners of the several townships, respectively, in which such highways and bridges are situated. It was held by this court in Sharp v. Evergreen, 35 N. W. Rep. 67, that it is the duty of the townships to keep the highways known as “State Roads” in repair; that such state roads, by the act of the legislature in 1836, were placed under the care and control of the townships; and by such act and subsequent legislation the townships were liable, under the statutes, for not keeping them in repair, and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel, the same as they would be for injuries occurring by their neglect upon roads laid out and established by highway commissioners. Laws 1836, p. 103; How. St. § 1321. See, also, Id. $$ 1442, 1445; Sharp v. Evergreen, supra. The statute also provides that it shall be the duty of the townships to keep in good repair, etc., all public bridges within their jurisdiction, as well as the highways; and another statute makes them liable for neglect of this duty. How. St. $$ 1442, 1445. The territorial roads became state roads when_Michigan was admitted as a state, and come within the ruling of Sharp v. Evergreen. The fact that the law forbids the altering or discontinuance of any state or territorial road by highway commissioners, and vests such power in the supervisors, does not interfere with or diminish the duty of the township to keep such roads and the bridges upon them in good repair while such roads are used as public highways, and have not been altered or discontinued. The present bridge upon this Monroe road, and crossing the river Rouge, which at this

« ПретходнаНастави »