Doyle v. Election Comm'n of City of Detroit

Decision Date13 January 1933
Docket NumberMotion No. 483.
Citation246 N.W. 220,261 Mich. 546
PartiesDOYLE v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF CITY OF DETROIT et al. BROWN v. SAME.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Separate original petitions for writs of mandamus by Lillian M. Doyle and by Lawrence E. Brown against the Election Commission of the City of Detroit and others.

Writ granted in second case and denied in first case.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Robbins & Schuur, of Detroit, for petitioner.

John C. Bills, Oscar C. Hull, and Leo I. Franklin, all of Detroit, for plaintiff Brown.

Clarence E. Wilcox, Corp. Counsel, and James R. Walsh, Asst. Corp. Counsel, both of Detroit (Joseph A. Gillis, of Detroit, of counsel), for respondents.

POTTER, J.

These two mandamus cases were consolidated and heard together and will be so disposed of. Both are brought to compel action by the board of election commissioners of the city of Detroit. The first by Lillian Doyle who was denied, by defendants, the right to file her petitions for nomination for judge of the court of common pleas of Detroit for a a term commencing immediately after the election and ending July 3, 1935, on the ground that Act No. 332, Public Acts 1931, is unconstitutional so far as it attempts to extend the term of office of the judges of the court of common pleas for a period of two years. The second is brought by Lawrence E. Brown, a citizen, resident and taxpayer of Detroit, to compel defendants to refrain from calling and holding a primary or election in the spring of 1933 to elect judges of the court of common pleas of Detroit, for a term of six years from and after June 4, 1933, because defendants have accepted the nominating fee from one Ray Richards in order to have his name placed on the primary ballot for the spring of 1933 for the office of common pleas judge, for a term of six years commencing July 4, 1933, upon the theory that Act No. 332, Public Acts 1931, is unconstitutional.

The constitutionality of Act No. 332, Public Acts 1931, is attacked on the ground it is a local act passed by the Legislature in violation of section 30 of article 5 of the Constitution; is in violation of section 3 of article 16 of the Constitution; and the extension of the term of office of the judges of the court of common pleas already elected is a legislative interference with the constitutional right of local self-government, an unlawful exercise of the appointing power by the Legislature, in violation of the fundamental principles of home rule.

Act No. 260, Public Acts 1929, provided for the creation of the courts of common pleas in cities of a requisite population, and for the election of one judge for each 125,000 population. Act No. 260, Public Acts 1929, made no provision for a limitation on the number of judges of the court of common pleas, while Act No. 332 of 1931 limits the number to nine. Act No. 260, Public Acts 1929, prescribes three years legal practice anywhere as a qualification for the office of the judge of the court of common pleas. Act No. 332, Public Acts 1391, requires four years legal practice in Michigan. By Act No. 260, Public Acts 1929, a judge of the court of common pleas could engage in practice elsewhere. By Act No. 332, Public Acts 1931, he is prohibited from engaging in legal practice. By Act No. 332, Public Acts 1931, the rule making power of the court of common pleas was extended. The regular term of office of all judges of the court of common pleas was extended from four years to six years. The judges of the court of common pleas having been elected under Act No. 260, Public Acts 1929, for terms of four years which by Act No. 332, Public Acts 1931, is extended to six years.

Only one question of importance is involved; that is the constitutionality of Act No. 332, Public Acts 1931. There are no presumptions against its constitutionality. The policy of the law is determined within constitutional limits by the Legislature, which is presumed to have acted within the scope of the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. The Legislature of the state possesses all of the power possessed by the parliament of England, save as such power is modified, limited, and restrained by the Constitution of the United States and of the state.

Act No. 332, Public Acts 1931, is to be construed in relation to the condition created by Act No. 260, Public Acts 1929, and the objects and purposes of the act itself, as defined therein.

Section 30 of article 5 of the Constitution provides: ‘The Legislature shall pass no local or special act in any case where a general act can be made applicable, and whether a general act can be made applicable shall be a judicial question. No local or special act, excepting acts repealing local or special acts in effect January one, nineteen hundred nine and receiving a two-thirds vote of the Legislature shall take effect until approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon in the district to be affected.’

Act No. 260, Public Acts 1929, was held not to be a local act but a general law, in Kates v. Reading, 254 Mich. 158, 235 N. W. 881; notwithstanding, ‘the standard of population adopted by it renders it applicable only to the city of Detroit.’ If Act No. 260, Public Acts 1929, was a general law, Act No. 332, Public Acts 1931, which amended it is, for the same reasons, a general law.

It is claimed Act No. 332,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Bankhead v. McEwan
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • June 30, 1971
    ...a general act).Also holding acts valid, see Holland v. Adams (1934), 269 Mich. 371, 257 N.W. 841; Doyle v. Election Commission of the City of Detroit (1933), 261 Mich. 546, 550, 246 N.W. 220.But see cases cited in fn. 19.22 Sullivan v. Graham (1953), 336 Mich. 65, 57 N.W.2d 447 (act regulat......
  • Uaw v. Green, Docket No. 314781.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • August 15, 2013
    ...limitations, the Michigan Legislature “possesses all of the power possessed by the parliament of England,” Doyle v. Detroit Election Comm., 261 Mich. 546, 549, 246 N.W. 220 (1933), and “can do anything which it is not prohibited from doing by the people through the Constitution of the State......
  • City of Hazel Park v. Mun. Fin. Comm'n
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1947
    ...177 N.W. 722;Atttorney General, [ex rel. Lennane], v. City of Detroit, 225 Mich. 631, 196 N.W. 391. In Doyle v. Election Commission [of City of Detroit,] 261 Mich. 546, 246 N.W. 220, we again held that the general law passed by the 1931 session of the Legislature did not infringe upon the r......
  • Connor v. Herrick
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 31, 1957
    ...of all legislative power. Constitutional provisions are to be regarded as limitations, not grants of such power. Doyle v. Election Commission, 261 Mich. 546, 246 N.W. 220. "In passing upon the constitutionality of State legislation, it is necessary to point out in the Constitution of the St......
  • 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