We have held that the right of a city to acquire property includes the power to enter into a contract for its purchase. City of Pontiac v. Ducharme, 278 Mich. 474. We have also held that the Court will not intervene in the exercise of the granted discretion of public officials.

Hudson Motor Car Co v Detroit, 282 Mich. 69, 78; 275 N.W. 770 (1937). The city is given a general grant of rights and power subject to certain restrictions City of Pontiac v Ducharme, 278 Mich. 474, 480; 270 N.W. 754 (1936). Under the provisions of the home rule act, the City of Detroit acted under its general police power, which includes authority from the state to regulate liquor.

After its adoption, the Court upheld the exercise of extra-territorial power on the basis of local necessities and conveniences without reliance on the "within or without" language contained in the Constitution. In City of Pontiac v. Ducharme (1936), 278 Mich. 474, a contract to purchase a sewage disposal site outside the city was held not to be ultra vires. In Village of St. Clair Shores v. Village of Grosse Pointe Woods (1947), 319 Mich. 372, plaintiff sought to enjoin defendant from owning and maintaining a park within plaintiff's boundaries.

"(3) For the exercise of all municipal powers in the management and control of municipal property and in the administration of the municipal government, whether such powers be expressly enumerated or not; for any act to advance the interests of the city, the good government and prosperity of the municipality and its inhabitants and through its regularly constituted authority to pass all laws and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns subject to the Constitution and general laws of this State." See, also, Conroy v. City of Battle Creek, 314 Mich. 210; City of Pontiac v. Ducharme, 278 Mich. 474; City Commission of Jackson v. Hirschman, 253 Mich. 596; and Gallup v. City of Saginaw, 170 Mich. 195. The point here made is that under our Constitution and our home-rule cities act, cities may exercise substantially greater powers essential to local self-government than they previously were allowed to exercise.

Savidge v. Village of Spring Lake, 112 Mich. 91; Bay City Traction Electric Co. v. Bay City, 155 Mich. 393, 402; Salzer v. City of East Lansing, 263 Mich. 626. The city relies on City of Pontiac v. Ducharme. 278 Mich. 474; Morley Brothers v. Township of Carrollton, 305 Mich. 285; DiPonio v. City of Garden City, 320 Mich. 230, and like decisions, where bond issues had been approved, authority granted, and appropriations made. In none of them was it made to appear that decision depended upon whether a charter provision required a specific appropriation in order to justify the expenditure of public money.

A person who is engaged to render services for the government in a particular transaction is neither a public officer nor a public employee. City of Pontiac v. Ducharme, 278 Mich. 474, 270 N.W. 754; See LaChance v. Rigoli, 325 Mass. 425, 91 N.E.2d 204; Louisville, Evansville St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 138 U.S. 501, 505, 11 S.Ct. 405, 34 L.Ed. 1023. Appreciation in value subsequent to the formation of a contract will not ordinarily afford ground for refusing performance by equity although it may make the performance of the two parties unequal.

"It is to be noted that the home-rule act for villages is one of general grant of rights and powers, subject, however, to stated restrictions and thereunder the charter may carry any provisions deemed proper for the municipal government not contrary to the Constitution or any general statute. See City of Pontiac v. Ducharme, 278 Mich. 474; Toebe v. City of Munising, 282 Mich. 1. No election is required for special assessment bonds for general village improvements of public moment and need. Nor is an election necessary for an issue of bonds for the village portion of local improvements, if within the designated percentage, or in the refunding of such bonds.

" See, also, City of Pontiac v. Ducharme, 278 Mich. 474; Conroy v. City of Battle Creek, 314 Mich. 210. In Miller v. Michigan State Apple Comm., 296 Mich. 248, this Court upheld an act of the legislature imposing a tax on the privilege of marketing Michigan-grown apples.

In City Commission of Jackson v. Hirschman, 253 Mich. 596, we held that the home-rule act not only states what the city may do but leaves many things to be implied from the powers conferred; that considering the purpose of the act, it should be construed liberally and in the home-rule spirit. In City of Pontiac v. Ducharme, 278 Mich. 474, we quoted with approval from Gallup v. City of Saginaw, 170 Mich. 195, stating in regard to the home-rule act: "The new system is one of general grant of rights and powers, subject only to certain enumerated restrictions, instead of the former method of only granting enumerated rights and powers definitely specified.

" See, also, People v. Sell, 310 Mich. 305; City of Pontiac v. Ducharme, 278 Mich. 474; City Commission of Jackson v. Hirschman, 253 Mich. 596. In Wood v. City of Detroit, 188 Mich. 547, 558, 559 (L.R.A. 1916 C, 388), we said: