Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co. v. Common Council of City of Detroit

• Citation: 125 Mich. 673,86 N.W. 809
• Parties: DETROIT CITIZENS' ST. RY. CO. v. COMMON COUNCIL OF CITY OF DETROIT. DETROIT, FT. W. & B. I. RY. CO. v. SAME. DETROIT SUBURBAN RY. CO. v. SAME.
• Decision Date: 02 July 1901
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

86 N.W. 809

125 Mich. 673

DETROIT CITIZENS' ST. RY. CO. v. COMMON COUNCIL OF CITY OF DETROIT.

DETROIT, FT. W. & B. I. RY. CO. v. SAME.

DETROIT SUBURBAN RY. CO. v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 2, 1901

On application for reargument. Denied.

For former opinion, see 85 N.W. 96.

HOOKER, J.

This cause is before us on rehearing. 85 N.W. 96. At the time the city authorized the building of these railroads, the policy of the state was to collect a specific tax in lieu of other taxes. At the same time the legislature so far modified this rule that it permitted the city to contract for the payment of local taxes, as a condition to the building of the roads. City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co., 76 Mich 425, 43 N.W. 447. When made, that was a binding contract on the city for the period which the company was authorized to use the streets. Neither party could change it without consent of the other. In 1882 the policy of the state was changed, and the provisions relating to the specific tax were repealed, and thenceforth state and county taxes were levied in accordance with the rule pertaining to other property. But this could not affect existing contracts, and the railways theretofore organized had the right to pay local taxes on the basis of such contracts. The city of Detroit made the repeal of the law providing for the specific tax a ground for claiming the right to ignore the contract in relation to city taxes, and dissensions arose, which led to a new arrangement. Thus, in 1887 the Detroit City Railway consented to an adjustment of this controversy by accepting a new ordinance; and this was passed upon in the case of City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co., 76 Mich 422, 43 N.W. 447. In 1885 the same thing had been done in the case of the Grand River Street Railway, and the tax has since been paid upon the basis of that arrangement. Now the city is again insisting upon a right to ignore its contract and increase the tax upon this property. We passed upon the question in our original opinion, but counsel ask a rehearing upon the ground that we overlooked the fact that the ordinance of 1887 relating to the Detroit Citizens' Railway and that of 1885 relating to the Grand River are not identical in terms. Both had contract rights that were invulnerable under their original franchises. Both undertook to adjust controverted rights by accepting new ordinances making new contracts, which this court in ...