Ford Motor Co. v. Village of Wayne

Decision Date25 February 1960
Docket Number40,Nos. 39,s. 39
Citation101 N.W.2d 320,358 Mich. 653
PartiesFORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. VILLAGE OF WAYNE et al., Defendants and Appellants, Marguerite A. Montgomery et al., Defendants. Leonard P. DIEHL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. VILLAGE OF WAYNE et al., Defendants and Appellants, Marguerite A. Montgomery et al., Defendants.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

William T. Gossett, Dearborn, for Ford Motor Co., Richard B. Darragh, Edward C. Hanpeter, Dearborn, of counsel.

William Sempliner, Plymouth, for plaintiffs and appellees.

Russel W. Schmidt, Detroit, for defendants and appellants.

Nellis & Nellis, Detroit, for defendants and appellees Township of Nankin and others.

Before the Entire Bench, except BLACK, J.

CARR, Justice.

These cases have resulted from proceedings instituted to incorporate into a city the present village of Wayne in Nankin township, Wayne county, and contiguous lands in said township not embraced within the village limits. Involved is the interpretation, and application, of provisions of the so-called city home rule act. 1 Said proceeding was initiated by a petition, in accordance with the provisions of the statute, setting forth specifically the boundaries of the territory sought to be incorporated as a city. The board of supervisors of the county under date of June 11, 1958, approved the petition and set August 5, 1958, for submission of the question to the electors of the affected area. A separate tally of votes cast by electors within the village and those residing in the balance of the affected area was kept. The proposition was carried by a vote of approximately 7 to 1 within the village, but in the remaining territory there was a majority against incorporation. At said election charter commissioners for the proposed new city were chosen.

Following the election, under date of August 6, 1958, the plaintiff Ford Motor Company filed suit in circuit court to enjoin the board of canvassers of Wayne county from certifying the results of the election on the basis of considering as a unit the entire area sought to be incorporated. It was alleged in the bill of complaint that unless restrained by order of the court the defendant board would so certify in accordance with its action in a prior case to which specific reference was made. Plaintiff claimed in its pleading that the votes cast within the village and within the territory outside of the village in the affected area should be considered separately, and that the negative vote in the township area had resulted in the defeat of the proposed action. Under date of August 8 a second suit was instituted by plaintiff Diehl and others, taxpayers and registered voters of Nankin township residing in the territory outside the village of Wayne proposed to be included in the new city. The same issue was raised as in the suit brought by Ford Motor Company.

Temporary restraining orders were issued on the filing of the suits, with orders to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted. On the return date of said orders, August 12, 1958, the board of canvassers appeared by its attorney who advised the court that the board had no interest in the outcome of the suits. It was suggested that interested parties be joined, and accordingly the court ordered that the village of Wayne and its officers, the township of Nankin and its officers, the elected charter commissioners of the proposed city, and the members of a so-called 'Citizens' Committee' organized to promote the incorporation of the city of Wayne, be added as parties defendant to the cause. Thereafter the village of Wayne filed motions to dismiss the cases, which were denied. Answers were then filed on behalf of the defendants. The cases were transferred to the trial call and duly submitted. The circuit judge, as indicated by the opinion filed by him, came to the conclusion that under pertinent provisions of the city home rule act, above cited, the incorporation of the proposed new city required an affirmative vote within the village of Wayne and likewise in the territory within the township outside of said village included in the proposed city, voting separately. Decrees were entered in accordance with the opinion, granting the relief sought by the plaintiffs. The village of Wayne has appealed from said decrees and other defendants added by order of the court have joined therein.

In the trial court these cases were argued and submitted together and like course has been followed on the appeals. The question presented is whether pertinent provisions of the city home rule act as amended require that, in an election to incorporate as a city a village and contiguous territory located in the same township, an affirmative majority of the votes within such village, and a like majority in the territory to be included in the area affected outside of the village, is required in order to accomplish the proposed action. Concededly the problem presented is one of statutory construction. This requires that applicable provisions be interpreted in accordance with the general plan of the legislature as evidenced by the provisions of the act. Section 9 of the statute (C.L.S.1956, § 117.9 [Stat.Ann.1957 Cum.Supp. § 5.2088]) has specific reference to the 'affected district' in cases of incorporation, consolidation, or change of boundaries, indicating the procedure to be followed in each such proceeding, with particular reference to the question as to why may vote in each, and the basis for determining the result. Said section reads as follows:

'The district to be affected by every such proposed incorporation, consolidation or change of boundaries shall be deemed to include the whole of each city, village or township from which territory is to be taken or to which territory is to be annexed: Provided, however, That when a territory is proposed to be incorporated as a city only the residents of the territory to be incorporated shall vote on the question of incorporation: Provided further, That when a petition signed by the state by the appropriate agency designated by the state administrative board which holds the record legal title to the entire area of the land in the territory adjacent to the city to annexed, is filed with the governing body of said city and with the township board of the township in which such territory is situated, such annexation may be accomplished by the affirmative majority vote of the governing body of such city and the approval of the township board of such township. Any proposed consolidations or changes of boundaries shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the city, and to the qualified electors of the city, village or township from which the territory to be taken is located, and at the election when said question is voted upon, the city, village or township shall conduct the election in such manner as to keep the votes of the qualified electors in the territory proposed to be annexed or detached in a separate box from the one containing the votes from the remaining portions of such city, village or township: Provided, however, That territory may be attached or detached to or from cities having a population of 15,000 or less if a majority of the electors voting on the question in the city to or from which territory is to be attached or detached, and a majority of the electors from that portion of the territory to be attached or detached, as the case may be, both vote in favor of such proposition. If the returns of said election shall show a majority of the votes cast in the district to be annexed, voting separately, to be in favor of the proposed change of boundary, and if a majority of the electors voting in the remainder of the district to be affected as herein defined, voting collectively, are in favor of the proposed change of boundary, then such territory shall become a part of the corporate territory of the city or shall be detached therefrom, as the case may be. If no qualified electors reside in the territory proposed to be annexed or detached at the time of filing said petition with the clerk of the board of supervisors, as provided in section 8 of this act, and if a majority of the electors voting in the district to be affected as herein defined, voting collectively, are in favor of the proposed change of boundaries, then such territory shall become a part of the corporate territory of the city or shall be detached therefrom, as the case may be. Where the territory proposed to be annexed to any city is adjacent to said city and consists of a park or vacant property located in a township and owned by the city annexing the same, and there is no one residing thereon, such territory may be annexed to said city solely by resolution of the city council of said city or in any case where the territory proposed to be annexed is adjacent to said city and consists of fractional parts of platted subdivision lots, located in an adjoining city, village, or township, such annexation may also be accomplished by the affirmative majority vote of the legislative body of such city and the approval of the legislative body of such adjoining city, village or township: Provided further, That as an alternate method, where there are no qualified electors residing in the territory proposed to be annexed to said city, other than the person or persons petitioning, a petition signed by a person or persons, firms, corporations, the United States government, or the state or any of its subdivisions who collectively hold the record legal title to more than 1/2 of the area of the land in the territory to be annexed is filed with the city council of said city and with the township board of the township in which such territory is situated, such annexation may be accomplished by the affirmative majority vote of the city council of such city and the approval of the township board of such township: Provided further, That at least 10...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Cronin v. Minster Press
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • November 7, 1974
    ...obvious purpose of a statute. Northville Coach Line, Inc. v. Detroit, 379 Mich. 317, 150 N.W.2d 772 (1967); Ford Motor Co. v. Village of Wayne, 358 Mich. 653, 101 N.W.2d 320 (1960). In the instant case, it is quite clear that the trial court was not weighing equities, but rather was looking......
  • Fulton v. Citizens Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • July 22, 1975
    ...obvious purpose of a statute. Nothville Coach Line, Inc. v. Detroit, 379 Mich. 317, 150 N.W.2d 772 (1967); Ford Motor Co. v. Village of Wayne, 358 Mich. 653, 101 N.W.2d 320 (1960).' Cronin v. Minster Press, 56 Mich.App. 471, 477, 224 N.W.2d 336, 339 GCR 1963, 105.4 is permissive in nature. ......
  • Gebhardt v. O'Rourke
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1994
    ...provision. Furthermore, when ambiguity exists, courts are to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Ford Motor Co. v. Village of Wayne, 358 Mich. 653, 101 N.W.2d 320 (1960); Kubick v. Child & Family Services of Michigan, 171 Mich.App. 304, 429 N.W.2d 881 (1988). Clearly, the Legislat......
  • Village of Inkster v. Board of Sup'rs of Wayne County, 67
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • April 26, 1961
    ...Tp., 313 Mich. 1, 20 N.W.2d 787; City of Dearborn v. Village of Allen Park, 348 Mich. 449, 83 N.W.2d 447, and Ford Motor Co. v. Village of Wayne, 358 Mich. 653, 101 N.W.2d 320, the defendant township alleges that the questioned election 2 and its certified result effectively incorporated su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT