City of Detroit v. Safety Inv. Corp.

Decision Date04 April 1939
Docket NumberNo. 115.,115.
Citation285 N.W. 42,288 Mich. 511
PartiesCITY OF DETROIT v. SAFETY INV. CORPORATION et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Suit by the City of Detroit against the Safety Investment Corporation and others to foreclose certain tax liens. From a decree of foreclosure, the named defendant appeals.

Affirmed with modification as to period of redemption.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; DeWitt H. Merriam, Judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

David M. Miro, of Detroit, for appellant.

Raymond J. Kelly, Corp. Counsel, and John H. Witherspoon and John G. Dunn, Asst. Corp. Counsels, all of Detroit, for appellee.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

In City of Detroit v. Sitter, 285 N.W. 40, decided herewith, we had under consideration the effect of the 1933 and 1935 amendmentsto sections 11, 19 and 21 of chapter 4 of title 6 of the charter of the City of Detroit, in the light of Hoffman v. Otto, 277 Mich. 437, 269 N.W. 225, and Act No. 325, Pub. Acts 1937, § 1, which amended section 74 of the General State Tax Law, the same being 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 3467 (Stat.Ann. § 7.120). In the matter now under consideration we have an appeal from a decree of the circuit court, which held section 18 of chapter 4 of title 6 of the charter of the City of Detroit (as amended October 10, 1933) valid. The decree determined that this section was applicable to tax and assessment liens for the years 1933 and 1934. The first mentioned tax became a lien on the property prior to the effective date of the amendment.

Defendant Safety Investment Corporation, the sole appellant herein, acquired an interest in certain premises in the city of Detroit under a 99-year tax lease dated June 1, 1931, wherein the city was grantor and the appellant, grantee. This lease was issued in accordance with the provisions of the city charter as they existed before the 1933 amendment; the city having acquired its interest by reason of the non-payment of the 1930 taxes. The city real estate taxes for the years 1933 and 1934, not having been paid, were subsequently advertised for sale as provided by the charter of the city and statutes of the state, and the unpaid tax liens of the city were bid in by the controller in 1934 and 1935 in the sums of $302.98 and $308.14, respectively. The city then filed a bill of complaint to foreclose these tax liens, predicating its right upon section 18 of chapter 4 of title 6 of the charter. This section became effective October 16, 1933. The parties filed a statement of facts in which they agreed that this defendant claimed that (a) section 18 is unconstitutional for the reasons given in its answer, (b) that if section 18 is constitutional, it is retroactive and, therefore, unenforceable as to the 1933 tax lien, and (c) that the city is estopped by having been given a 99-year lease to this defendant from extinguishing the interest of its lessee by purchase and foreclosure of taxes subsequently levied.

The charter provision in question is somewhat lengthy. It provides that if a tax lien is still unpaid for two years succeeding the date of its sale, the holder, in this instance the controller, may then or at any time thereafter file a bill in chancery in the circuit court of Wayne county to foreclose the same, that-‘such bill and the procedure thereon shall conform to the law in respect to foreclosure in chancery of liens on real estate other than mortgage or other liens having special statutory provisions applicable thereto,’ that costs and attorney fees may be fixed, that summons and other process shall issue as in other chancery cases, including service by publication on absent and non-resident defendants, that a decree shall not be entered before the expiration of 120 days after the filing of the bill, that there shall be no redemption period under the decree beyond 60 days, and that appeals may be taken from the decree as in other chancery cases, etc.

Section 11, chapter 4, title 6 of the charter of the City of Detroit authorizes the city to sell lands for delinquent taxes.

The use of the word ‘constitutional’ is somewhat inaccurate in a discussion involving the statutory authority of a municipality to adopt charter amendments.

The questions presented on appeal have been argued on the basis of the lack of jurisdiction of the chancery court and the authority of the city to adopt the particular amendment to its charter. If the City of Detroit was authorized by the legislature to place the amended section in its charter, the question of the chancery court's jurisdiction is fully answered.

The Home Rule Act, 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 2228 et seq. (Stat.Ann. § 5.2071 et seq.), recognizes the power of the city to levy taxes, and it is mandatory that the subjects of taxation shall be the same as those set up in the general tax law, section 2230 of the Compiled Laws of 1929 (Stat.Ann. § 5.2073). This power also contemplates the power to make all reasonable provisions for the collection of these taxes.

‘Power to levy and collect taxes, it is commonly held, carries with it the implied power to employ the necessary and usual procedure to execute the power and collect the revenue contemplated by the grant of power to make the levy.’ McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 6(2d) § 2566.

‘When action is taken by a state or one of its municipal subdivisions, manifestly in the interest of its people as a whole, and the rights of individuals are not abridged thereby, and such action is not within the inhibition of some constitutional or statutory provision, it should be upheld as a valid exercise of authority, though lacking in any positive grant of power to support it.’ Bowler v. Nagel, 228 Mich. 434, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • City of Detroit v. Walker, Docket Nos. 96594
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 26, 1994
    ...Moreover, home rule cities have power to make all reasonable provisions for the collection of these taxes. Detroit v. Safety Investment Corp., 288 Mich. 511, 515, 285 N.W. 42 (1939). The Michigan Constitution provides that "[t]he provisions of this constitution and law concerning counties, ......
  • Booker v. City of Detroit, Docket No. 219554.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • August 23, 2002
    ...520 N.W.2d 135 (1994); Detroit v. Collateral Liquidation, Inc., 295 Mich. 440, 441, 295 N.W. 218 (1940); Detroit v. Safety Investment Corp., 288 Mich. 511, 515-517, 285 N.W. 42 (1939). 7. Furthermore, while the Magee holding relied on Joy, supra at 733, 440 N.W.2d 654, for the proposition t......
  • Baker v. State Land Office Bd.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • September 6, 1940
    ...character, affecting tax lines which attached prior to such an enactment, are not unconstitutional. City of Detroit v. Safety Investment Corp., 288 Mich. 511, 285 N.W. 42; and statutes affecting such liens, shortening the time previously fixed for sale or redemption, affect only a remedy fo......
  • City of Detroit v. O'Connor, Motion No. 344.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • September 8, 1942
    ...Charter of the City of Detroit on March 8, 1938. The validity of this section of the charter was upheld in City of Detroit v. Safety Investment Corporation, 288 Mich. 511, 285 N.W. 42. See, also, City of Detroit v. Collateral Liquidation, Inc., 295 Mich. 440, 295 N.W. 218. In the first case......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT