Detroit Union Railroad Depot & Station Co. v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 13 November 1891
• Citation: 88 Mich. 347,50 N.W. 302
• Parties: DETROIT UNION RAILROAD DEPOT & STATION CO. v. CITY OF DETROIT et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

50 N.W. 302

88 Mich. 347

DETROIT UNION RAILROAD DEPOT & STATION CO. v. CITY OF DETROIT et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 13, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county, in chancery; CORNELIUS J REILLY, Judge.

Bill by the Detroit Union Railroad Depot & Station Company against the City of Detroit and Charles K. Trombly to enjoin defendants from selling complainant's property for taxes. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

John W. McGrath, City Counselor, and Edward Minock, (John J. Speed, of counsel,) for appellants.

F A. Baker and James F. Joy, for appellee.

GRANT J.

The complainant is organized under act No. 244 of the Pub. Acts of 1881, (How. St. c. 93.) Among the general powers conferred by this act upon corporations organized under it is the following: "To erect and maintain all necessary and convenient buildings, stations, depots, and fixtures for the accommodation and use of passengers and of freight, and of other business within the purpose of its organization." Section 4, cl. 5. Section 21 provides that such corporations shall pay an annual tax of 2 1/2 per cent. upon their gross earnings, said tax to be in lieu of all other taxes upon their property, except such real estate as is owned and can be conveyed by them under the laws of the state, and not actually occupied in the exercise of their franchises, and not necessary for the proper use thereof. The complainant erected an elevator upon its property in the city of Detroit on the bank of the Detroit river. The city of Detroit in the year 1889 placed this elevator upon the general assessment roll for said city, and assessed the same for general city purposes to the amount of $3,711.97. Complainant refused to pay, and the defendants were proceeding to a sale of the property, when this bill was filed to restrain the sale. Decree was entered for the complainant. The decree was correct. It is altogether too narrow a construction of this statute to hold that an elevator is not included in the provision of the law above quoted. This elevator is as essential and necessary to the complainant in the handling of its grain as is its depot for the use of passengers, or its freight depot for the handling of the general merchandise it carries. It is complainant's grain depot, used in the business of transportation, and only used as a warehouse in connection with its regular business as a common carrier. The...