City Comm'n of Jackson v. Hirschman

• Decision Date: 11 March 1931
• Docket Number: Motion No. 363.
• Citation: 253 Mich. 596,235 N.W. 265
• Parties: CITY COMMISSION OF JACKSON v. HIRSCHMAN, CITY Treasurer, et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

253 Mich. 596

235 N.W. 265

CITY COMMISSION OF JACKSON

v.HIRSCHMAN, CITY Treasurer, et al.

Motion No. 363.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 11, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Guy A. Miller, Judge.

Mandamus proceedings by the City Commission of the City of Jackson against Harry A. Hirschman, City Treasurer, and others. From the judgment rendered, defendants Harry A. Hirschman, City Treasurer, and Clifton H. Vedder, City Clerk, appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except POTTER, CLARK, and NORTH, JJ.Bisbee, McKone, Wilson & King of Jackson, for appellants.

Benjamin Kleinstiver, of Jackson, for appellee.

McDONALD, J.

This is an appeal from a circuit court judgment in mandamus. The question in issue arises out of the refusal of the city clerk and the city treasurer of Jackson, Mich., to negotiate a loan as directed by the city commission. The loan is authorized by recent amendments to the city charter. The purpose of the amendments was to change the fiscal year of the city of Jackson from January 1st to July 1st. In the accomplishment of this purpose, it was necessary to provide funds for the payment of city expenditures for the six months period between January and July, that is, from the last day of the old fiscal year to the first day of the new fiscal year. Consequently, the amendments provided for a six months' budget, a six months' appropriation, and a six months' tax levy. It is this provision that gives rise to the present controversy. The defendants contend that, inasmuch as the Home Rule Act (Comp. Laws 1929, § 2230) only provides for ‘annually laying and collecting taxes' and for ‘an annual appropriation of money for municipal purposes,’ the city has no power to provide for a six months' appropriation and levy.

The determination of this question requires a construction of the Home Rule Act, for, if the city has power to make a six months' appropriation and tax levy, it is because the power is conferred expressly or impliedly by that act.

The applicable portion of the act will be found in section 3306, C. L. 1915, being section 2230, C. L. 1929. It provides in part as follows:

‘Sec. 3. Each city charter shall provide: * * *

‘(g) For annually laying and collecting taxes in a sum not to exceed two (2) per centum of the assessed value of all real and personal property in the city.

‘(h) For an annual appropriation of money for municipal purposes.’

These provisions are mandatory, and, if the charter amendments had sought to change the policy of annual appropriations and tax levies to periods of six months, it clearly would have been within the inhibition of the act. But no such change was attempted. The amendments make provision for a continuance of annual appropriations and levies. The only change made is for a temporary levy to bridge over the gap created by setting the fiscal year ahead six months. This was necessary in order to put into effect the change in the fiscal year. A reading of the Home Rule Act shows that it is rather comprehensive in its provisions as to what the city may or may not incorporate in its charter, but it leaves many things to be implied from the power conferred. One of these implied powers is the power to change the fiscal year. In changing the fiscal year by setting it ahead six months, there is necessarily created a six months' interval in which the city would be without funds to carry on its municipal business. Of what use would be the power to change the fiscal year if there did not go with it the power to do whatever was essential to put the change into effect. It surely was not the intention of the Legislature to confer power and withhold the...