Harding v. Bader

• Citation: 75 Mich. 316,42 N.W. 942
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 21 June 1889
• Parties: HARDING v. BADER ET AL.

42 N.W. 942

75 Mich. 316

HARDING v. BADER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 21, 1889

Error to circuit court, Allegan county; ARNOLD, Judge.

CHAMPLIN J.

Harding recovered below in an action of ejectment against defendants. His claim of title was based upon two deeds executed by the auditor general, and delivered to the plaintiff; one for the sale of the land in question for the taxes of 1875, and the other for the year 1878. Bader was in possession at the time the suit was brought by Douglas, as his tenant, claiming title in fee, through title derived from the United States. The land is situated in the township of Wayland, Allegan county. At the annual township meeting held on the 5th of April in the year 1875, $175 was voted to be raised for incidental expenses for the current year, which vote was entered upon the records of such meeting. The record of the proceedings of the township board of Wayland, held September 13, 1875, states that the said township board met pursuant to call of the supervisors, and was organized, with Nash supervisor; Stockdale, justice of the peace; and Hoyt, clerk of said township, (all present;) and that, "on motion of David Stockdale, the supervisor was authorized to spend $125 in addition to the sum voted at the last township meeting of the township, for township expenses." There was no express statement in the record that the township board found that the electors neglected or refused to vote a sufficient sum for such expenses at the annual township meeting, and no express statement that the sum so voted by the electors was insufficient to meet the township expenses for the current year. The statute empowers the inhabitants of each township at any legal meeting, by a vote of the qualified electors thereof, to grant and vote sums of money not exceeding such amounts as are or may be limited by law, as they shall deem necessary for defraying all proper charges and expenses arising in the township. How. St. � 671. It is made the duty of the township clerk to transcribe, in the book of records of his township, the minutes of the proceedings of every township meeting held therein. Id. � 740. He is also the clerk of the township board, and is required to keep a true record of all their proceedings. Id. � 748. The township board is required, at their annual meeting on Tuesday next preceding the annual township meeting, to examine and audit all accounts of the treasurer and other township officers, and also all claims against the township.

All accounts allowed by the board must be filed and preserved by the township clerk, and produced at the next annual meeting which takes place on the succeeding Monday. Id. �� 746, 747, 749. It is also provided, by section 750, "that whenever the qualified electors of any township, at the annual township meeting, shall neglect or refuse to vote such sum or sums of money as may be necessary to defray the ordinary township expenses, the township board of any such township is hereby authorized, at any regular meeting, to vote such sum or sums as may be necessary for that purpose, not exceeding such amounts as are or may be limited by law." Under the foregoing facts, and the statutes above cited, the circuit judge found, as matter of law, that there was no presumption that the township board voted this tax without authority; that there was no showing that this additional sum was not in fact necessary to defray the ordinary expenses of the township for the then current year; that there is no statute requiring the township board to expressly determine of record the sum voted by the electors to be insufficient, or that an additional sum is required for that purpose; that the record implies the township board found an additional sum to be necessary, and voted to raise such sum; that it was in fact a regular meeting, it being called by the supervisor, and all the members of the board were present; that the action of the township board was sufficient in fact and in law to authorize the sum of $125, in addition to the sum of $175 voted at the annual township meeting, for contingent or township expenses upon the assessment roll. I do not consider that the conclusions of law above stated follow from the facts found by the circuit judge. The township board, as has been held by this court, is a body of special and limited jurisdiction. People v. Supervisor, 14 Mich. 336. The rules applicable to agencies of circumscribed, limited, and special authority must be applied to the proceedings had by township boards. One of these is that it must appear upon the face of their records that they had jurisdiction to act in the matter which is called in question. The township board is not authorized by law to vote such sum or sums of money as they shall deem best for township expenses, nor are they authorized to vote money to defray township expenses at their pleasure. Their authority to act, under section 750, depends upon the neglect or refusal of the qualified voters at the annual township meeting to vote such sum or sums as may be necessary to defray the ordinary township expenses. The record must show the neglect or...