Case Name: Isaac N. Coleman v. The Common Council of the City of Cadillac
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1882-10-18
Citations: 49 Mich. 322
Docket Number: 
Parties: Isaac N. Coleman v. The Common Council of the City of Cadillac.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 322–322

Head Matter:
Isaac N. Coleman v. The Common Council of the City of Cadillac.
Oomnon council — Health officer — Balm'y.
Under the charter of Cadillac the city council has the power to fix the salary of the health officer, and the board of health cannot bind the council by assuming to fix it, instead. Act 178 of 1873.
Mandamus to compel respondent to pay to relator the sum of $27.50 alleged to be due and unpaid as part' of his salary as health officer of Cadillac. Delator’s petition alleges that he had been appointed by the board of health which had fixed his salary at five dollars a week; that he had presented his quarterly bill for $65' and that the board had allowed it; that he had then presented it to the city council which had referred it to its finance committee; that the committee had reported in favor of allowing the bill at $37.50, and that this amount had been paid him. The respondent answers that there is no regularly constituted board of health for the citgq and that the board claiming to act had no authority to appoint a health officer; that the council had fixed the health officer’s salary at $150 per annum, under the authority vested in it by the city charter —Act 178 of 1873 — and had moreover appointed another person to hold the office; but they admit that they had allowed relator’s bill at the sum alleged.
Motion submitted October 17.
Denied October 18.
Sawyer <& Bishop for relator.
Melntyre ds Rice for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The Court think that the statute bearing on the question will hardly warrant the view that the board of health were empowered to definitely fix the compensation of the health officer so as to bind the council to' the result.
The better construction seems to be that the power is vested in the council.
The writ is therefore denied with costs against the relator.