Case Name: ANDERSON v. CITY OF DETROIT
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1900-06-18
Citations: 124 Mich. 471
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANDERSON v. CITY OF DETROIT.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 471–472

Head Matter:
ANDERSON v. CITY OF DETROIT.
Public Works — Contractors and Subcontractors — Claim for Personal Injury — Settlement—Mandamus to City.
Where, in an action against a paving contractor by a subcontractor, it was determined that the plaintiff was not entitled |o recover a balance due upon his subcontract, represented by a certified cheek deposited with the city by the defendant upon payment by it of the contract price, pending the settlement of a citizen’s claim against the city for personal injuries sustained by reason of the negligence of the subcontractor, such adjudication was sufficient ground for the court’s declining to issue a mandamus to compel the city, after its liability to the citizen had been discharged, and pending its suit against the contractor for reimbursement, to turn over the check to the subcontractor.
Certiorari to Wayne; Hosmer, J.
Submitted June 5, 1900.
Decided June 18, 1900.
Mandamus by Andrew Anderson against the city of Detroit and the board of public works of said city to compel the delivery of a certified check. From an order denying the writ, relator brings certiorari.
Affirmed.
G°orge Gartner, for relator.
C. D. Joslyn, for respondents.

Opinion:
Long, J.
The whole subject of this controversy was before this court in Anderson v. Grant, 114 Mich. 161 (72 N. W. 144). It now appears that the check of $421.65 is still held hy the board of public works, and a mandamus was asked in the court below to turn it over to the relator. This the court below refused. It is claimed by counsel for relator that assuming that Dooley was injured, and that by reason thereof he had a claim against the city or against Grant or against Anderson, or against them all jointly, yet, this being an independent matter, this claim cannot be taken into consideration here. This contention cannot be sustained. In the former case it appeared that Anderson sued Grant for this $421.65, and it was held that he could not recover, on account of the pendency of the Dooley claim. This is the identical amount and the identical money which it was there held that Anderson had no right to have, by reason of the Dooley claim. It appears now that Dooley has sued the city and obtained judgment, and there is now a suit pending *in behalf of the city against Grant to recover from him the amount of the Dooley judgment. The question was settled in the former case that, under the circumstances there, Anderson could not recover. He is in the same position still with regard to the Dooley matter.
The court below very properly denied the writ of mandamus. The judgment must be affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.