Groh v. City of Battle Creek
| Decision Date | 31 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 44,44 |
| Citation | 118 N.W.2d 829,368 Mich. 653 |
| Parties | Warren D. GROH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF BATTLE CREEK, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Joseph V. Wilcox, Albion, George R. Sidwell, Lansing, of counsel, for plaintiff and appellant.
R. W. Harbert, Jr., Battle Creek, J. W. McAuliffe, Battle Creek, of counsel, for city of Battle Creek.
Before the Entire Bench, except ADAMS, J.
SOURIS, Justice (for reversal).
The issue we consider controlling in this appeal is whether the second proviso which appears in section 8 of P.A.1909, No. 279 (C.L.S.1956, § 117.8 [Stat.Ann.1961 Cum.Supp. § 5.2087]) applies to a petition for annexation to the defendant city of Battle Creek of the entire city of Springfield, which adjoins Battle Creek, there having been an unsuccessful effort within the preceding two years to annex portions of the city of Springfield to Battle Creek. The language of the pertinent proviso with which we are here concerned reads as follows:
'Provided further, That a petition covering the same territory, or part thereof, shall not be considered by the board of supervisors oftener than once in every 2 years, unless such petition shall have been signed by a number of taxpayers assessed for real property taxes within the area proposed to be annexed whose names appear on the latest assessment rolls therein under the requirements of the general property tax, equal to 35% of the total number of names which appear on the assessment rolls prepared pursuant to said act as being assessed for real property taxes within the area proposed to be annexed, and it shall be the duty of the assessing officers who are charged with the duty of assessing real property within the area proposed to be annexed to report as of the date on which the petition is filed the total number of names on such rolls, within such area, to the clerk of the board of supervisors not more than 14 days after said filing date * * *.'
In 1959 petitions were filed with the Calhoun county board of supervisors for the annexation to Battle Creek of two parcels of industrial property located in Springfield. An annexation election was held thereon and the county board of canvassers determined that an insufficient number of votes in the city of Springfield had been cast in favor of the annexation to accomplish the same. This determination was the subject of litigation by certiorari and, on appeal to this Court, the canvassers' ruling was upheld. Cavanagh v. Calhoun County Canvassers, 361 Mich. 516, 105 N.W.2d 707.
Some time prior to our decision in Cavanagh v. Calhoun County Canvassers, new petitions were filed with the supervisors proposing the annexation of the entire city of Springfield to defendant Battle Creek. Another suit was thereupon instituted, in chancery, in Calhoun county circuit court to enjoin consideration of the eptition by the board of supervisors, the claim being that the territory covered by said petitions included territory previously the subject of similar annexation petitions within the preceding two years without satisfying the above quoted proviso's requirement that the petitions be signed by taxpayers assessed for real property taxes within the area proposed to be annexed equal in number to 35% of the total number of names appearing on the assessment rolls within that area. Upon denial of injunctive relief in the circuit court, the plaintiff made application before this Court for leave to appeal and for stay of proceedings. We denied leave to appeal and the requested stay on September 20, 1960. Immediately thereafter the board of supervisors approved the petitions and the issue was submitted to the electors of both cities affected by the petitions at the general election held on November 8, 1960. A majority of the electors voting upon the proposition in each city voted affirmatively. This action was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Calhoun County Bd. of Sup'rs
...this proposition and it was approved by the requisite majorities both in Battle Creek and Springfield. However, in Groh v. City of Battle Creek, 368 Mich. 653, 118 N.W.2d 829, we set aside the results of the election because the petitions for annexation had not been signed by at least 35% o......
-
Baird v. Independent School Dist. No. 3 of Woodward County
...Godwin Heights Public Schools v. Board of Supervisors, 363 Mich. 337, 340, 109 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Mich.1961); Groh v. City of Battle Creek, 368 Mich. 653, 118 N.W.2d 829 (Mich.1962). ...
-
Bunker v. Genesee County, 31
...to the trial court and to this Court from the record before it is strikingly similar to that disclosed in Groh v. City of Battle Creek, 368 Mich. 653, 118 N.W.2d 829. In each case, two annexation proceedings covering part of the same territory were attempted within a two-year period. In eac......
-
Taylor v. Nieusma
...matter to the electors. We think that here the patent defects of the petition gave rise, as did the situation in Groh v. City of Battle Creek, 368 Mich. 653, 118 N.W.2d 829, to a question of jurisdiction of the board to act. In holding that the petition did not meet statutory requirements, ......