Graham v. Fleming

• Decision Date: 05 April 1898
• Citation: 116 Mich. 571,74 N.W. 729
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GRAHAM ET AL. v. FLEMING, COUNTY CLERK.

74 N.W. 729

116 Mich. 571

GRAHAM ET AL. v. FLEMING, COUNTY CLERK.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 5, 1898

Petition by John Graham and others for a writ of mandamus to R. Andrew Fleming, clerk of the county of Muskegon. Denied.

Fred A Maynard (Drury & Strong, of counsel), for respondent.

MONTGOMERY J.

Petitioners allege, in the first four paragraphs of their petition, that they are all members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and that said John Graham is the presiding elder of the Grand Rapids district, within whose bounds the proposed Moreland Methodist Episcopal Church is to be located; that it has been agreed by the proper church authorities that the said church shall be organized at Moreland; that on January 7, 1898 petitioners executed articles of association under Act No. 110 of [116 Mich. 572] 1895, entitled "An act for the incorporation of Methodist Episcopal Churches"; that on January 17, 1898, they presented their said articles, drawn up and certified properly under said statute, to the Muskegon county clerk, for record in his office pursuant to said act that said clerk refused to record the articles, on the ground that Act No. 209 of 1897, entitled "An act to revise amend and consolidate the laws for the incorporation of ecclesiastical bodies," provides, in section 10, that "all churches, religious societies, Sunday schools, or other societies for the purpose of diffusing moral or religious knowledge, hereafter incorporated, shall be incorporated under this act." The answer admits all of the above allegations. The petitioners aver that the said refusal is illegal upon two general grounds: (1) That the act of 1897 does not repeal or supersede, expressly or by implication, the Methodist Church act of 1895; and (2) that the act of 1897 is unconstitutional. The answer denies both these propositions. Relators ask a mandamus directing respondent to file their articles of association preferred under the law of 1895.

1. Does the act of 1897 supersede, as to churches to be organized after the act took effect, the Methodist Church act of 1895? We think this question must be answered in the affirmative. The title of the act of 1897 is most comprehensive. It is to revise consolidate, and amend the laws of incorporation of ecclesiastical bodies. The plain purpose of this enactment, as expressed in the title, was to collect such provisions as were essential to the incorporation of ecclesiastical bodies and embody them in one law. Any other construction would do violence to the language employed. An analogous question was discussed in both opinions in Attorney General v. Parsell, 100 Mich. 170, 58 N.W. 839, and little need be added. In the opinion in that case the writer said: "The use of the word 'consolidate' indicates very clearly that the purpose of the legislature was to collect in one act the law relating to the subject." See, also, Tafoya v. Garcia, 1 N. M. 480; Roberts' Case, 51 Mich. 548, 17 N.W. 50. That a later act which covers the whole subject repeals prior acts repugnant thereto is established doctrine. Shannon v. People, 5 Mich. 85; Feige v. Railroad Co., 62 Mich. 1, 28 N.W. 685; Attorney General v. Parsell, supra,...