Bray v. Stewart, 43.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 43.,43. |
| Parties | BRAY et al. v. STEWART et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Edw. D. Black, Judge.
Suit for injunction by Albert Henry Bray and others against Albert E. Stewart and others. Decree for plaintiffs and defendants appeal. Bill dismissed.
Argued before SHARPE, C. J., and BIRD, SNOW, STEERE, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ.Robert M. Toms, Pros. Atty., and Frank B. Ferguson, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for appellants Board of County Canvassers and Clerk of Wayne County.
Matthew H. Tinkham and Jesse W. Bollinger, both of Detroit (Walter S. Ray, of Wayne, of counsel), for appellants Charter Commissioners of Proposed Village of Inkster.
James J. Spillane and Donald McGaffey, both of Detroit, for appellees.
On June 4, 1926, certain qualified electors of the townships of Nankin and Dearborn, in the county of Wayne, petitioned the board of supervisors of that county, praying that the question of incorporating a part of the territory situate in each of said townships, and particularly described therein, into the village of Inkster, be submitted to the electors of the territory to be affected at the next general election, or at a special election to be called for that purpose, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 278, Pub. Acts 1909 (1 Comp. Laws 1915, § 2843 et seq.), Act No. 395, Pub. Acts 1919, and as further amended by Act No. 90, Pub. Acts 1925. By resolution the board ordered a special election to be held on September 14, 1926. Notice thereof was given to the qualified electors residing in the territory to be included in such village, and only such electors were permitted to vote thereon. A majority of the votes cast was in favor of incorporation. Pursuant to the resolution, a charter commission was also then elected.
Before the certification of the results of the election, the plaintiffs filed the bill of complaint herein, alleging that the provisions of the statute as amended had not been complied with, averring that the statute was unconstitutional, and praying that further proceedings tending to perfect such organization be enjoined.
On the hearing, the facts were agreed upon, and, after argument, the trial court sustained the claim of the plaintiffs, and an injunction was issued as prayed for in the bill. The defendants appeal.
1. Constitutionality of the Act.-The title to the act reads as follows: ‘An act to provide for the incorporation of villages and for revising and amending their charters.’ Section 1 continues the corporate existence of villages theretofore incorporated. Section 2 provides that ‘villages may be incorporated or territory detached therefrom or added thereto, or consolidation made of two or more villages into one village’ by proceedings originated by petition. Section 3, Act No. 40, Pub. Acts 1925, requires the petition to ‘accurately describe the proposed boundaries' of the village, and to represent that there are not less than 225 inhabitants and an average of not less than 100 inhabitants per square mile in the territory proposed to be incorporated. Section 4 provides that the board of supervisors shall make provision for the submission of the question of incorporation ‘to the qualified electors of the district to be affected’; and section 5 provided:
‘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, except that the question of incorporating a new village shall be determined by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which only the electors residing within the territory proposed to be incorporated shall vote.’
In 1919, section 5 was amended to read 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 proposed incorporations, consolidations or changes of boundaries shall be submitted to the qualified electors residing within the territory proposed to be incorporated or residing within the village to which territory is to be annexed as the case may be, and also to the qualified electors of the city, village or township from which the territory to be taken is located and at the election, when the 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 incorporated or annexed or detached in a separate box from the one containing the votes from the remaining portions of such city, village or township, and if the returns of said election shall show a majority of the votes cast in the district proposed to be incorporated or annexed, voting separately, to be in favor of the proposed incorporation or change of boundary as the case may be, 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 incorporation or change of boundary as the case may be, then such territory shall become incorporated as a village or shall become a part of the corporate territory of the village or shall be detached therefrom, as the case may be.’
In 1925, this section was again amended by adding the following provison thereto:
‘Provided further, that the question of incorporating a new village from territory located in a township or townships shall be determined by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which only the electors residing within the territory proposed to be incorporated shall vote.’
It is difficult to perceive the purpose sought to be accomplished by the change in this section in 1919 so far as it applies to incorporation. Little hamlets, sometimes spoken of as unincorporated villages, will be found in all of the counties in the state. Usually, a general store is first established near a schoolhouse, and this is followed by churches, shops, etc. Many farmers build themselves homes in such places, and leave their farms to be cultivated by their sons or by others to whom they are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sylvan Twp. v. City of Chelsea
...313 Mich.App. 336 decisions that did not involve the same statutory provision. See id. at 296–297, 13 N.W.2d 821, citing Bray v. Stewart, 239 Mich. 340, 344, 214 N.W. 193 (1927) (discussing which electors may vote on a proposed annexation), and Village of DeWitt v. DeWitt Twp., 248 Mich. 48......
-
Taylor v. Dearborn Tp.
...He found further, and accordingly ruled, that the incorporation of such new city violated no right asserted by plaintiffs. Bray v. Stewart, 239 Mich. 340, 214 N.W. 193, upheld statutory validity of the proceedings by which Inkster village was incorporated. That was in 1927, following incorp......
-
Board of St. Ry. Com'rs of City of Detroit v. Wayne County
...a charter for the city of Detroit'); Village of Kingsford v. Cudlip (1932), 258 Mich. 144, 151, 241 N.W. 893, and Bray v. Stewart (1927), 239 Mich. 340, 347, 214 N.W. 193 (annexation of territory of a township by a village; the title of the act under consideration in the last 2 cited cases ......
-
Wyandotte Sav. Bank v. Eveland
...State, from Pickford, near Sault Ste. Marie, to Temperance, near the Ohio border. Their description by the court, in Bray v. Stewart, 239 Mich. 340, 344, 214 N.W. 193, 194, is 'Little hamlets, sometimes spoken of as unincorporated villages, will be found in all of the counties in the state.......