The Yale expositor. (Yale, St. Clair County, Mich.) 1894-current, 1915-05-27


the time of the commencement of
this suit there was any ordinance in
existence in the City of Yale limiting
or restricting the territorial limits in
which saloons may be located?
Determination of Issue No. Son
May 3, 1915, the date of the filing of
this petition for a writ of mandamus,
there was no ordinance in existence
in the City of Yale limiting or re-
stricting the territorial limits in
which saloons may be located.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
/.
The Common Council of the City
of Yale has power delegated to it by
the legislature of Michigan, to pre-
scribe by ordinance the location of
saloons, by subdivision IA, of chap
ter IL, of the Act for the incorpora-
ton of cities OF the fourth class, the
same being Section 1929, Howell's
Statutes, End Edition, and Section
3107, c. l.. 1897 The authority thus
delegated has been upheld by the
Supreme Court of this state
Johnson VS.. Bessamer Common
Council, 143 Mich. 313.
Where the power to prescribe the
location of saloons is expressly given
to municipality, an ordinance fix
ing saloon district is a valid exer-
else Of the power.
Timm VS.. Common Council, 149
Mich. 1923.
On the 25th of this month there
will be in force in the City of Yale,
q 1apaIIv adOntad ordinanna nrovid;no
a district for the location OF saloons,
outside of which is located the Crys-
Ter House, in which relator has ap-
piled for right to sell intoxicating
liquors at retail or to conduct a sa-
loon. 1t is now the 22nd day Of the
month. On and after the 25th, or on
and after next Tuesday, relator will
be violator of law should be con-
duct saloon in this location, even
though this court should issue the
writ prayed for and compel respon-
dents to approve REALTORS application
and bond Should the writ of man
damus issue today, and should re-
spondents act at once in accordance
with the writ, and today approve re-
lator's application and bond, and
should relator pay his license fee of
$250.00 today to the treasurer of the
City of Yale under the ordinance OIL
May 1, 1914, and file his approved APP
plication and bond today with the
treasurer of st. Clair county, and re-
ceive his state license, he would then
have but one day, next Monday, in
which to conduct a retail liquor bust
ness in the Crysler House.
The writ Of mandamus under the
Michigan practice is a discretionary
writ. The court should not be re-
quired to issue the writ where its
effect would be Of no avail. The court
should not attempt by this writ to do
an idle or useless thing. Were it not
for this ordinance which goes into
effect next Tuesday, relator would be
entitled to the relief for which he
prays, but considering the ordinance
we must deny the writ under the d.
rect authority of the recent case Of
FUCHS VS.. COMMON COUNCIL OF
GRASS LAKE, 166 Mich. 500.
3.
Relator contends that the motives
of the majority of the members of
the Common Council Of the City OF
Yale in promoting and passing this
OIuluduCe were W plcNCAI ASldbOi
from conducting a bar in his hotel.
However this may be, this court has
no right to pass upon the motives OF
the members of this Common Council
in doing that which they had legal
right to do.
l McQuillin on Municipal Corpora
tions, Section 378;
% Cyc. 375;
Paine VS. Boston, 124 Mass. 4S6.
Relator also contends that this or
dinance is unreasonable in it's terms.
AS hereintofore stated, the statute
confers the power upon the legisla-
| tive departments of fourth-class cities
to enact ordinances Of this character.
The discretion to fix saloon limits is
broadly given without any limitation.
Courts will not interfere with the ex-
ercise of discretionary authority thus
conferred and exercised as it has been
| in this case.
1 McQuillin on Municipal Corpora
tons, Section 376 Eft Seq.
An order may be entered denying
the writ of mandamus. We do not
think under the facts of this case re-
lator should be required to pay costs;
hence, no costs are allowed in favor
of either party.
EUGENE +. LAW,
HARVEY TAPPAN,