City of Niles v. Stream Control Comm'n, 17.
Decision Date | 11 March 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 17.,17. |
Citation | 296 Mich. 650,296 N.W. 713 |
Parties | CITY OF NILES v. STREAM CONTROL COMMISSION. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding by the City of Niles, a municipal corporation, against Stream Control Commission, for a decree that order of the commission requiring the City of Niles to erect a sewage treatment plant was void. From an order dismissing the petition, the City appeals.
Order affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ingham County, in Chancery; Leland W. carr, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Casper R. Grathwohl, of Niles, for plaintiff and appellant.
Thomas Read, Atty. Gen., and Thomas A. Kenney and Arch M. Black, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Herbert J. Roshton, Atty. Gen., and Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., for defendant Stream Control Commission.
Act No. 245, Pub.Acts 1929, Comp.Laws 1929, § 278 et seq., Stat.Ann. §§ 3.521-3.533, created the State stream control commission with power to exercise ‘control of the pollution of lakes, rivers and streams and all waters of the state of Michigan and the great lakes, which are or may be affected by waste disposal of municipalities, industries, public or private corporations, individuals, partnership associations, or any other entity.’
Acting under the provisions of this law, the stream control commission, on March 15, 1938, ordered: ‘That the city of Niles is hereby directed to begin construction of the necessary collecting or intercepting sewers and an approved sewage treatment plant not later than May 1, 1939, the same to be completed ready for operation by May 1, 1941.’ This order followed unsuccessful endeavors by the commission to have the city of Niles take care of its sewage.
The act permits review de novo of such order in the circuit court for the county of Ingham in chancery.
The city of Niles petitioned the circuit court for the county of Ingham to decree the order void on the ground that, considering the location of the city upon the St. Joseph River below cities discharging sewage therein, the order is unreasonable and an unlawful discrimination against the city of Niles and an arbitrary exercise of the powers and duties of the commission. Upon hearing the petition was dismissed, and plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
It is stipulated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Huntington v. State Water Commission
...Mill Creek Coal & Coke Company v. Public Service Commission, 84 W.Va. 662, 100 S.E. 557, 7 A.L.R. 1081; City of Niles v. Stream Control Commission, 296 Mich. 650, 296 N.W. 713; Commonwealth v. Roberts, 155 Mass. 281, 29 N.E. 522, 16 L.R.A. 400; Sprague v. Dorr, 185 Mass. 10, 69 N.E. 344; Mi......
-
City of Utica v. Water Pollution Control Bd.
...e. g., Suffolk County v. Water Power and Control Commission, 269 N.Y. 158, 164-165, 199 N.E. 41, 42-43; City of Niles v. Stream Control Commission, 296 Mich. 650, 654, 296 N.W. 713; Shirley v. New Hampshire Water Pollution Commission, 100 N.H. 294, 299-300, 124 A.2d 189; State Board of Heal......
-
Town Of Meredith v. State Bd. Of Health.
...make effective its rules and regulations previously promulgated. The case is, therefore, on all fours with City of Niles v. Stream Control Commission, 296 Mich. 650, 296 N.W. 713, 715. In that case the City of Niles was ordered to established a sewage system and sewage treatment plant in or......
- Kruizenga v. Earl