Bd. of Educ. of Detroit v. Elliott

• Decision Date: 03 December 1947
• Docket Number: No. 69.,69.
• Citation: 29 N.W.2d 902,319 Mich. 436
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF DETROIT (BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS et al., Interveners) v. ELLIOTT et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

319 Mich. 436

29 N.W.2d 902

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF DETROIT (BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS et al., Interveners)

v.ELLIOTT et al.

No. 69.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 3, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ingham County, in Chancery; Louis E. coash, judge.

Suit by the Board of Education of the City of Detroit against Eugene B. Elliott, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and others, for a declaration of rights and for injunctive relief, wherein the Board of Education of the City of Grand Rapids and others intervened. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, plaintiff and intervening plaintiffs appeal.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

NORTH and BOYLES, JJ., dissenting in part.

Before the Entire Bench.

Clarence E. Page, of Detroit (William E. Dowling, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant Board of Ed. of City of Detroit.

F. Roland Allaben, of Grand Rapids, for appellant Board of Ed. of City of Grand Rapids.

Kleinstiver & Anderson, of Jackson, for appellant Union School Dist. of Jackson.

Crawford S. Reilley, of Detroit, for Board of Ed. of Highland Park.

Guy Selby, of Flint, for School Dist. of City of Flint.

Lou L. Landman, of Muskegon, for Public Schools of City of Muskegon.

Braun & Kendrick, of Saginaw, for School District of City of Saginaw.

Davidson, Beauchamp & Theut, Hugh K. Davidson and Helen A. Theut, all of Detroit, for Detroit Teachers' Ass'n.

Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for Michigan Federation of Teachers.

Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., (Elbern Parsons, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., and Caroline W. Thrun, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellees.

CARR, Chief Justice.

This case involves the constitutionality and interpretation of certain provisions of Act No. 331, Pub. Acts 1947, by which the legislature made appropriations for specified educational purposes. The general object of the act is indicated by its title, which reads as follows: ‘An Act to make appropriations from the general fund of the State for the purpose of aiding in the support of the public schools of the State; and for the purpose of reimbursing counties for salaries of county commissioners of schools or county superintendents of schools; to provide for the apportioning of the same annually to the school districts and to the county treasurers of the State; to provide for the creation of a State school district to receive, administer and disburse appropriations to the Michigan and Detroit public school employees' retirement funds and to the State board of education for the Michigan school for the deaf and the Michigan school for the blind; to provide certain limitations and regulations in connection therewith; to declare the effect thereof; to provide penalties for the violation thereof; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act.’

In accordance with the title, § 1, chap. 1, of the act appropriates for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, the sum of ‘$51,705,633.05 from the general fund of the State to school districts to be distributed in accordance with this act.’ Said section further recites that the amount so appropriated is 44.77 per cent of the State sales tax revenues of the preceding year, and that the appropriation is made in accordance with the provisions of § 23, art. 10, of the State Constitution.

Section 60, chap. 3, of Act No. 331, provides: ‘For the purposes of this act the State shall constitute a single school district. The superintendent of public instruction shall be the executive officer of such State school district, and the State board of education, the State board of control for vocational education, the Michigan public school employees' retirement fund board and the retirement commission created under chapter 2 of Act No. 136 of the Public Acts of 1945, shall be the administrative boards of such district. Said State school district shall not supercede, affect or limit any of the powers, constitutional or statutory, in force when this act takes effect belonging to the superintendent of public instruction or any board listed hereunder, nor shall it supercede, replace or limit the statutory powers of school districts organized and operating under other statutes.’

In directing the distribution of the money appropriated by the act, as contemplated by § 1, chap. 1, above mentioned, the legislature in § 23, chap. 2, appropriated $600.000 to the State school district for vocational education, and directed such appropriation to be administered by the State board of control for vocational education in the manner provided by prior statutes of the State. Likewise, in § 28, chap. 2, there was appropriated to said State school district for the Michigan school for the blind the sum of $278,350, and for the Michigan school for the deaf the further sum of $457,910, said amounts to be administered and disbursed by the State board of education. The following section then appropriated to the State school district the sum of $5,500,000 to be administered and disbursed by the public school employees' retirement fund board, and by the retirement commission created under chap. 2, Act No. 136, Pub. Acts 1945, said amount to be pro-rated to the two funds indicated on the basis of contributions made thereto by members. Section 61, chap. 3, makes further provision for the disbursement of each of the specified amounts so appropriated, and defines the duties of each board and commission specified as a disbursing agency.

Art. 10, § 23, of the State Constitution (1908) referred to in the first section of the act under consideration, was adopted by a vote of the people at the general election held November 5, 1946. It reads as follows: ‘There shall be returned to local governmental units and school districts by the method hereinafter set forth, one cent of a State sales tax levy on each dollar of sales of tangible personal property on the present statutory base (not rate). The State tax collecting authority shall divide the entire said sum without deduction and remit fifty per cent thereof among the school districts on the basis of the school census on which primary school money is distributed for that fiscal year. The balance of fifty per cent shall be returned to counties as a whole on a population basis and payment shall be made to the county treasurer who shall remit to the respective cities, townships and villages within the county on a per capita basis. Population computation shall be based on the last State-wide Federal census for purposes of division among counties and upon the same basis or upon any special Federal countywide census, whichever is later, for intracounty division purposes. All remittances provided shall be made on a quarterly basis. The legislature shall hereafter make annual grants to school districts out of general funds, over and above all constitutional allocations heretofore and herein provided, in at least amounts which bear the same ratio to total State sales tax revenues of the preceding year which the legislative grants in the fiscal year 1945-1946 bore to said revenues of the preceding year.’

The interpretation of the amendment was before this court in City of Jackson v. Commissioner of Revenue, 316 Mich. 694, 26 N.W.2d 569, 579. It was there held that the provisions with reference to the return to local governmental units and school districts of one cent of the total sales tax collected were mandatory and self-executing, but that the final requirement with reference to annual grants to school districts out of general funds was not self-executing but rather contemplated legislative action which may not be enforced by mandamus. Recognizing that the provision with reference to the minimum grants to school districts was mandatory it was said: ‘Presumably, the legislature will obey the mandate, but it is not within the power or the province of the court to order the legislature to do so. It is also significant that the concluding sentence provides a minimum annual appropriation or grant to be made by the legislature, but leaves it to the discretion of the legislature whether it will make an appropriation in excess of the minimum amount. But it cannot lessen the amount set up by the formula in the concluding sentence of the amendment.’

The plaintiff, Board of Education of the city of Detroit, filed suit in the circuit court of Ingham county, asking for a declaration of rights¹ and for injunctive relief against the defendants, the superintendent of public instruction, the State treasurer, and the auditor general. Thereafter, other school districts of the State and teachers' associations sought and obtained leave to intervene as parties plaintiff, all intervenors adopting the bill of complaint filed by the original plaintiff. It was alleged therein, in substance, that the total amount of the appropriations made by Act No. 331 was less than required by art. 10, § 23, of the Constitution, that it was not within the power of the legislature to create a Statewide school district, that the specific appropriations attempted to be made to said school district for vocational training, the school for the blind, the school for the deaf, and the school employees' retirement funds, were wholly ineffective and void, that the total amount appropriated by the act should be distributed to school districts of the State, to the exclusion of the State school district. and that plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of rights in accordance with their claims and to injunctive relief to prevent the disbursement of any portion of the specific appropriations claimed to be invalid. On behalf of defendants a motion to dismiss was filed and also an answer putting in issue the material questions raised by the bill of complaint. Following trial in the circuit court the relief sought was denied and a decree entered dismissing the bill of complaint. From such decree plaintiffs have appealed.

The first question requiring consideration has reference to the...