Detroit Edison Co. v. East China Tp. School Dist. No. 3, s. 57-61

• Decision Date: 18 May 1962
• Docket Number: Nos. 57-61,s. 57-61
• Parties: The DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 et al., Defendants and Appellees. Walter F. GAUTHIER, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 et al., Defendants and Appellees. Elliott E. FOLKERTS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 et al., Defendants and Appellees. Edwin FRANCIS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 et al., Defendants and Appellees. Lowell STAGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 et al., Defendants and Appellees.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 298

115 N.W.2d 298

366 Mich. 638

The DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 et al., Defendants

and Appellees.

Walter F. GAUTHIER, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 et al., Defendants

and Appellees.

Elliott E. FOLKERTS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 et al., Defendants

and Appellees.

Edwin FRANCIS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 et al., Defendants

and Appellees.

Lowell STAGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 et al., Defendants

and Appellees.

Nos. 57-61.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 18, 1962.

Marshall Barrymore, Port Huron, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Fischer, Sprague, Franklin & Ford, Detroit (George H. Meyer, Detroit, of counsel), for plaintiff and appellant, The Detroit Edison Co.

Walsh, O'Sullivan, Stommel & Sharp, Port Huron (Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, Detroit, of counsel), for defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

SOURIS, Justice (for affirmance).

The principal question presented in this appeal is whether certain actions taken by the school districts of Marine City, East China township and city of St. Clair were consolidation proceedings or annexation proceedings within the meaning of the school code of 1955. ¹ At a higher level of abstraction, the principal question can be stated as follows: Can school districts be joined by following the statutory requirements for annexation ² which require only the affirmative action of the annexing district's school board and the favorable vote of the electorate of the annexed district, rather than by following the statutory procedure for consolidation ³ which requires the favorable vote of electors residing in each district affected by the consolidation?

There is a substantially higher tax base in East China township than in Marine City and the city of St. Clair. This circumstance, favorable to East China, is attributed to construction beginning in 1948 and ending in 1953 of The Detroit Edison Company's plant in East China. Although East China is the smallest of the three districts in area, number of electors and school census, it had the highest equalized valuation of the three and the lowest tax rate. Prior to the action challenged in these lawsuits, the school millage rate in East China was 2.3, in Marine City, 14.85, and in St. Clair, 13.5. After the annexation, the school millage rate within the combined school district was established at 7.

The St. Clair school district abutted that of East China at the latter's northern boundary, while the Marine City district abutted East China on the south and west. The East China school district was a fourth class district, and for several years preceding its school board's action here challenged, resolutions had been adopted at its annual meetings, the purposes of which were to proscribe the board's authority to annex, consolidate or transfer property, to or with other districts without a vote of the electors of East China.

In 1956 the members of the East China school board adopted a resolution, the legal sufficiency of which was one of the grounds for challenge in this proceeding, to establish the school district as a so-called registration school district pursuant to the provisions of chapter 8, part 2, of the school code of 1955 (C.L.S. 1956, § 340.531 et seq. [Stat.Ann.1959 Rev. § 15.3531 et seq.]). Pursuant to that resolution, members of the East China board were thereafter elected at annual elections, rather than at annual meetings of the district's electors, although it appears that the annual meetings continued thereafter to be held for the transaction of other business.

In November of 1960 the Marine City school board requested the East China board to annex its entire territory pursuant to the cited annexation provisions of the school code. Notwithstanding apparent opposition from a substantial number of the electors in the East China school district the majority of the board members, at a special meeting, resolved to approve the annexation of the Marine City school district. In January of 1961 a majority of the electors in Marine City voted in favor of the annexation of their territory to the East China district at a special election held for that purpose.

In the meantime, in December of 1960, the board of education of the St. Clair school district likewise requested that their district be annexed to East China and on January 23, 1961, by majority vote, the board of the East China School district approved the annexation of the St. Clair district. Later, the electors of the St. Clair school district also voted in favor of anexation.

Subject to the affirmative vote of the qualified school electors in both of the districts to be annexed, the annexations to the East China school district were approved by the state superintendent of public instruction, pursuant to the requirements of C.L.S. 1956, § 340.431 (Stat.Ann.1959 Rev. § 15.3431).

Five separate suits attacking the validity of the two annexation proceedings were instituted by residents from each of the school districts involved and by the Detroit Edison Company.

The five suits were consolidated by the chancellor and submitted to him for decision on the basis of a stipulation of facts, supported by many exhibits, and briefs of counsel. The chancellor concluded that the annexations were validly accomplished and dismissed the bills of complaint. Appeal to this Court followed, the five suits being again consolidated for purposes of appeal.

The plaintiffs claim that the East China school board was illegally constituted because of defects in the 1956 resolution purporting to adopt the provisions of the registration district act and that, consequently, the annexation actions taken by that board were invalid in view of the manifest disapproval thereof by the district's electors. They also argue that even if the members of the board were acting as de facto officers of the school district, their actions were unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive and, therefore, invalid. Finally, appellants challenge the validity of the proceedings resulting in annexation on the ground that such proceedings should have been taken under the consolidation provisions of the school code which would have required a favorable vote of the qualified electors of the East China school district as well as of the other two school districts involved.

It appears that subsequent to the Marine City annexation election, an election was held for the recall of certain of the members of the East China school board who voted in favor of the annexations. In this recall election all of the electors of the former school district of Marine City as well as the electors of East China were permitted to vote, ⁴ with the result that the recall failed of accomplishment. Also involved in this appeal is the propriety of permitting Marine City district's electors to vote in the recall election.

Plaintiffs' claim that the East China school board was not lawfully constituted is based upon the alleged insufficiency of the 1956 resolution adopted by the then incumbent board and upon the provisions of subsequently enacted section 55a of the school code (C.L.S.1956, § 340.55a, added by P.A.1956, No. 215). Plaintiffs claim that section 55a required board members of fourth class school districts, such as the East China school district, to be elected at annual meetings rather than at annual elections in the absence of a board resolution to the contrary and notwithstanding even a valid prior adoption by the school board of the act's registration district provisions. We are not persuaded by the novel argument made by appellants in support of this claim and, under the circumstances presented by the record before us, it is not necessary to discuss this claim further.

Even if we were to assume that the benefits of the school code's registration district provisions were not validly invoked by the East China board in 1956 and even if we assume, further, that by section 55a of the code or otherwise East China school board members...