us; that the general rule announced by the court was not necessary to a disposition of the issue and is largely dictum; that the court did not have before it section 2 of the ordinance, which limits the time for construction of tracks authorized, indicating that the ordinance could not apply to tracks thereafter constructed, or, by extension of boundary, subsequently brought within the city limits; and that all the ordinances now before us, granting franchises on Jefferson and Grand River avenues, as well as other streets, required the lines to be built within a definite time, performance being insured by provisions for a bond or a forfeiture.

It is true that the case at bar and People v. Railway, supra, have distinguishing features; and it is possible the latter case might have been disposed of on other and narrower grounds, but those which the court announced were pertinent, were not dictum, were directly in line with the points made and questions presented, and asked to be determined, by counsel for the respective parties, as appears by their briefs. The then counsel for respondent contended that

"There is nothing in the street railway act nor in the contracts contained in any of the ordinances or grants mentioned from which it can be asserted that, as often as the State should change the boundaries, the contracts would be correspondingly annihilated or altered, or the contracts of one municipality substituted, in whole or in part, for that of the other."

On the other hand, counsel for the city contended that in making these contracts

"It is to be presumed that the power of the legislature of the State was borne in mind, the power of increasing or diminishing territory from the given city, town, or village; when, within that ordinance, the words 'city limits' were used, it was meant not only the city limits, as then established, but the city limits as they might be in the future."

Authorities in support of both contentions were cited in that case and are cited here.

We think it can be said with certainty that, in a case where the question was pertinent and squarely presented in the briefs of counsel on both sides, argued and reargued, this court, in harmony with Indiana R. Co. v. Hoffman, supra (161 Ind. 593 [69 N. E. 399]), and the authorities there citied, now supported by the more recent case of Peterson v. Power Co., 60 Wash. 406 (111 Pac. 338, 140 Am. St. Rep. 936), has unequivocally declared it a general rule in this State that city ordinances, designed for the city at large, operate throughout its boundaries, whatever changes may be made in them, and that grants by such ordinances, though accepted and amounting to contracts, are to be construed as made and accepted in contemplation of, and subject to, such rules, unless the contrary is clearly expressed.

It is further urged in behalf of respondent that, conceding such general rule of construction, the contrary intent appears in this case from the language of the grants limiting the time of construction, together with the streets on which and points to where the lines might be built; referring specifically to city limits as they then existed, thus negativing future extensions. Counsel say in their brief:

"It is contrary to all reason to believe that in 1862 or 1868, or 1889, the city of Detroit made a grant fixing the rate of fare in territory which did not become a part of the city until 1907. Such a grant by implication is contrary to the fundamental principles of the construction of municipal grants"-citing cases.

We think the language already quoted from People v. Railway, supra, intimates that some such belief might be entertained. Certain of the language used in the ordinances points to such a possibility and intimates an understanding that a growth of the city and development of its public utilities, to which the grants should apply, were anticipated.

In the original ordinance of 1862, to the Detroit City Railway, it was exclusively authorized to construct and operate lines

"On and through Jefferson, Michigan and Woodward avenues, Witherell, Gratiot, Grand River and Brush or Beaubien streets, to Atwater street; and from Jefferson avenue at its intersection with Woodbridge street, to Third street; up Third street to Fort street and through Fort street to the western limits of the city; and through such other streets and avenues in said city as may, from time to time, be fixed and determined by vote of the common council of the said city of Detroit, and assented to, in writing, by said corporation."

Provision was also made for connecting these various lines with Woodward avenue in such manner that each will furnish a continuous route through the heart of the city to and along Jefferson avenue. It was also provided that the railway down Gratiot street, or through Randolph street, Monroe avenue, and the Campus Martius may be continued as grantees may elect. The ordinance of 1868 to the Grand River Street Railway company contemplated extension of lines on other streets than those named, double tracking, etc., looking forward to development and expansion.

We do not regard the restrictions, in the ordinances, as to streets, city limits, and time of construction, as of controlling import. They do not negative the presumption that the parties contracted with the power of the legislature to change the city limits in view. The limit of time for completing the lines on certain streets was but a preliminary condition. The subsequent right and ability to operate the lines and collect fares only became absolute when the lines were constructed and the preliminary condition forever disposed of, and then there was no time limit involved, except the life of the franchises.

It is unquestionably the law, as a general proposition, that in purchasing the Greenfield and Fairview lines respondent acquired all rights originally granted by the franchises for such lines; and it is equally a general rule of law that those rights, once granted and accepted, could not be destroyed or abridged by subsequent general or local legislation. But it does not follow that respondent

might not be in a position when those rights were purchased, by reason of other and previous contract obligations, so that as against certain parties and in certain localities all those rights could not be enjoyed or enforced by it.

The rights of the townships, which granted franchises for the lines respondent purchased, or of citizens of said townships, or of the holders of underlying bonds, or the validity of the franchises, are not involved here. It is only a question of whether respondent has, by contract with the city, obligated itself not to collect more than a five-cent fare in a certain zone where, were it not for such contract, it would be authorized so to do under said township franchises.

The court, in People v. Railway, supra, said of the ordinance of 1887 as an entirety that it should be construed as a mutual contract, made in view of and subject to the power of the legislature to change the city boundaries; the contracting parties being held to contemplate that an increased fare should not be demanded in case of an extension of the lines of the company within the city, either by purchase or acquisition from another company.

We do not think such construction is or should be limited to a single paragraph of the ordinance. It can with equal force be said of other parts of that ordinance, and of the others under consideration, that they are contracts to be construed as made in view of and contemplating expansion, and extension of application to territory which may by legislation be added to the city.

That contract and previous contracts, embodied in ordinances to which it is supplemental, define respondent's right of existence in the city of Detroit. Its primary rights in the city territory are by city grant. It has united, built up, and developed as an entirety a street railway system within the city, extending to and beyond its limits. It has absorbed by purchase and made a part of that system the township lines in question with their grants, and as a result of such unification and practical combination, even though in name and form it may re

tain the original corporate organization of the subsidiary companies, it has made them, as to the city and within the city, an integral part of the whole, and subjected them to the restrictions contracted for in the original city ordinances, thus defining and limiting its own rights under the township grants, within city territory, as subordinate to and dominated by said city ordinances.

We are of opinion that the conclusions arrived at by the court below are correct, and its judgment is therefore affirmed.

MOORE, C. J., and MCALVAY, BROOKE, KUHN, Stone, OSTRANDER, and BIRD, JJ., concurred.

KEISTER v. DONOVAN.

LOG LIENS

1. LOGS AND LOGGING - JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ATTACHMENT. Since statutory proceedings must be strictly followed, and a party making claims thereunder must prove that the court had jurisdiction, in garnishment proceedings, on a judgment rendered in attachment to enforce labor liens against timber products, it is necessary to make proof of the affidavit required by the statute as preliminary to the writ of attachment: a recital in the docket is not evidence that it was made. 3 Comp. Laws, § 10756, 5 How. Stat. (2d Ed.) § 13843.

2. SAME-ADJOURNMENT-DISCONTINUANCE.

By adjourning the case on his own motion at an adjourned day subsequent to the day of return, the justice of the peace lost jurisdiction of log-lien proceedings.

3. GARNISHMENT-LOG-LIEN ACT-DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. Garnishment lies to collect a debt secured by a statutory lien upon timber products, although a judgment has been obtained under the log-lien statute.