O'HARA v. Oakland County, No. 9397.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: HICKS, SIMONS, and McALLISTER, Circuit
• Citation: 136 F.2d 152
• Docket Number: No. 9397.
• Decision Date: 04 June 1943
• Parties: O'HARA v. OAKLAND COUNTY et al.

136 F.2d 152 (1943)

O'HARA
v.
OAKLAND COUNTY et al.

No. 9397.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 4, 1943.

136 F.2d 153

John P. O'Hara, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

No counsel appearing for appellee.

Harry J. Merritt, of Pontiac, Mich., counsel of record.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

HICKS, Circuit Judge.

On September 2, 1932, Oakland Hills Country Club, herein called Oakland Hills, a property owner and taxpayer, represented by petitioner-appellant as attorney, herein called petitioner, filed its bill in the Circuit Court of Oakland County, Michigan, in which it sought to have the proceedings leading to the establishment of Bloomfield Village Drain and Bloomfield Storm Sewer Drain No. 1 declared illegal and void. That was one of a number of suits commenced for a similar purpose. The Oakland Hills suit was tried as a test case and a decree was entered upholding the validity of the proceedings attacked and dismissing the bill. Oakland Hills, still represented by petitioner, appealed to the Supreme Court of Michigan, where the decree of the Circuit Court was vacated and a decree was entered holding the drainage proceedings void ab initio. The Drain Commissioner, as well as Oakland County itself, were parties defendant to that suit and were represented by the attorney for the County with attorneys for bondholders who had bought drainage bonds also acting as counsel. Oakland County was vitally interested because the drainage assessments upon property when collected were to be paid into the Treasury of the County and because it was secondarily liable for such assessments as could not be collected from the districts.

On August 23, 1933, holders of bonds of certain drainage districts brought a suit, which was essentially a class suit, in the United States District Court wherein they sought an adjudication to the effect that their bonds were valid and that the special tax assessments to pay them were enforceable. They also sought to invalidate the above-mentioned decree of the state Supreme Court.

An appearance was entered for Oakland County, certain of its officials and its Drain Commissioners. Oakland Hills, which had been a party plaintiff in the first suit, was made a party defendant and defended for all property holders in the drainage districts as a class and was represented by petitioner as counsel. The District Court sustained this bill and defendants appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was, in the opinion, consolidated with similar cases from another drain district. These consolidated cases appeared in this court under the style of Bloomfield Village Drain Dist. et al. v. Keefe et al., and our opinion is reported in 119 F.2d at page 157. We held that we were bound by the decree of the Michigan Supreme Court and dismissed the bill. After a petition for rehearing was denied the bondholders committee applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was denied, 314 U.S. 649, 62 S.Ct. 95, 86 L.Ed. 521. Thereafter, the committee applied for a rehearing, which was passed by the Supreme Court until the determination by the Supreme Court of Michigan of whether the Michigan drainage law was as interpreted by us. The Michigan Supreme Court again held that the drainage bonds were void and the Supreme Court of the United States then denied the pending writ of certiorari.

Thus, the litigation was...