Bd. of Educ., Rural Agric. Sch., Dist. No. 1, Grosse Pointe Tp., Wayne Cnty. v. Blondell
Decision Date | 03 October 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 99.,99. |
Citation | 251 Mich. 528,232 N.W. 375 |
Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION, RURAL AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL, DIST. NO. 1, GROSSE POINTE TP., WAYNE COUNTY, v. BLONDELL, Village Treasurer, et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery.
Suit by the Board of Education, Rural Agricultural School, District No. 1, Grosse pointe Township, Wayne County, against Neal Blondell, Treasurer of the Village of Grosse Pointe, and another. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, with direction to enter decree in accordance with opinion.
See also 232 N. W. 377.
Argued before the Entire Bench.William G. Fitzpatrick, of Detroit, for appellant.
Albert E. Meder, of Detroit (Beaumont, Smith & Harris, and Joseph A. Vance, Jr., all of Detroit, of counsel), for appellees.
Plaintiff is a Michigan rural agricultural public school corporation, whose district consists in the main of five incorporated villages in Wayne county. Its rights, powers, and duties are set forth in Act No. 319, Public Acts 1927, which is a condification of various laws as amended and provides for a system of public instruction in primary schools, for the classification, organization, regulation, and maintenance of schools and school districts, etc. It is referred to herein as the General School Code.
In 1925, in order to secure a site for an elementary school and at a cost of $180,086.17, plaintiff acquired through condemnation proceedings 7.27 acres of land in the village of Grosse Pointe. The General School Code provides that sites for rural agricultural schools should contain not less than 5 acres of ground. At the time the site was acquired, there were 12 dwelling houses on it, but when the 1928 village tax, the subject of the litigation in the present case, was levied, only seven houses remained; the others having been either sold or razed. The property was acquired exclusively for school purposes, but owing to the development of certain conditions, it was deemed wise to postpone the building of the new school for the time being. The project of building the school, however, was not abandoned, and the site is to be used exclusively for the purposes for which it was acquired. During the interval, however, good business judgment prompted the renting of the seven houses to private individuals. The gross amount of rentals for 1928 was $2,942.
The village of Grosse Pointe and its treasurer, who are defendants and appellees in the case at bar, assessed the property for general village taxes for the years 1927 and 1928. Plaintiff paid the 1927 tax and brought suit for its recovery. In a companion case in which we have filed an opinion this day, 232 N. W. 377, we held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover the 1927 tax.
Plaintiff refused to pay the 1928 village tax and brought the present suit to restrain defendants from reporting and returning the tax as unpaid to the Wayne county treasurer and further for the cancellation of such tax and assessment as illegal, null, and void.
Plaintiff claims that the property belongs to the school district and is exempt from taxation under section 8, chapter 2, part 2, Act No. 319, Public Acts 1927, heretofore referred to as the General School Code. Section 8 reads as follows:
‘The property of all school districts shall be exempt from taxation for all purposes.’
This act was approved June 1, 1927. It did not expressly repeal any of the then existing laws regulating the taxation of property. On May 7, 1927, Act No. 118 of the Public Acts of 1927 was approved of and given immediate effect. This act amends certain provisions of the General Tax Law governing the assessment of property and the levying and collection of taxes in the state of Michigan. The law, as amended, is the General Tax Law of this state. Certain provisions of section 7 of the previous tax law are amended by this amendatory act, but in enumerating the property exempted from taxation, the third paragraph of section 7 was not amended. It reads as follows:
‘Third, Lands owned by any county, township, city, village or school district and buildings thereon, used for public purposes.’
The sole question in the present case is which provision should prevail, the one exempting from taxation for all purposes all property belonging to school districts as set forth in the School Code hereinbefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kassab v. Michigan Basic Property Ins. Ass'n
...intent." Port Huron Mayor v. Port Huron City Treasurer, 328 Mich. 99, 111, 43 N.W.2d 77 (1950). See also Grosse Pointe Twp. Bd. of Ed. v. Blondell, 251 Mich. 528, 232 N.W. 375 (1930). When a general intention is expressed, and also a particular intention which is incompatible with the gener......
-
Grand River Drainage Dist. of Cass and Bates Counties v. Reid
... ... 1085. Board of Education v ... Blondell, 232 N.W. 375; State v. Burleigh ... County, 212 ... ...
-
Jenkins v. Patel
...both cannot stand as the law. Winter v. Royal Oak City Manager, 317 Mich. 259, 265, 26 N.W.2d 893 (1947); Bd. of Ed. v. Blondell, 251 Mich. 528, 531, 232 N.W. 375 (1930). Here, § 1483 can be read together and reconciled with the WDA; the damages cap being construed to apply in all medical-m......
-
Grand River Drain. Dist. v. Reid
...658; Portland v. Welch, 269 Pac. 868; Colorado Springs v. Fremont County, 84 Pac. 1113; Steward v. Denver, 202 Pac. 1085. Board of Education v. Blondell, 232 N.W. 375; State v. Burleigh County, 212 N.W. 217; Summer County Comnrs. v. Wellington, 72 Pac. 216 Webster v. Univ. of Calif., 126 Pa......