Harrison Tp. v. Board of Sup'rs of Schoolcraft County

• Decision Date: 24 May 1898
• Citation: 117 Mich. 215,75 N.W. 456
• Parties: HARRISON TP. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF SCHOOLCRAFT COUNTY.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

75 N.W. 456

117 Mich. 215

HARRISON TP. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF SCHOOLCRAFT COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 24, 1898

Error to circuit court, Schoolcraft county; Joseph H. Steere Judge.

Certiorari by the township of Harrison, on relation of Burton A. Craver its supervisor, against the board of supervisors of Schoolcraft county, from proceedings in which defendant detached territory from the township of Harrison, and attached the same to the township of Inwood. From a decision of the circuit court dismissing the writ, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

C. W Dunton and E. C. Chapin, for appellant.

Peters & Brown and George E. Pardee, for appellee.

HOOKER J.

The boundaries of the townships of Inwood and Harrison, in the county of Schoolcraft, were fixed by the legislature by an act which took effect March 18, 1893 the only purpose of which was to detach certain territory from the township of Inwood, and attach the same to the township of Harrison. On November 8, 1897, a petition, signed by the requisite number of freeholders of the two townships, as then constituted, was presented to the board of supervisors of the county, praying that certain territory be detached from the township of Harrison, and attached to the township of Inwood. Notice, proof of posting, publication, and the residence of the petitioners were shown. On December 15, 1897, the prayer of the petitioners was granted at a special meeting of the board. On December 21, 1897, the supervisor of the township of Harrison removed the proceedings to the circuit court by certiorari, where the writ was dismissed upon the hearing, and it has come to this court by writ of error.

1 How Ann. St. � 486, provides "that the board of supervisors *** shall have power *** to divide or alter in its bounds any township, or erect a new township," and points out the steps necessary for the accomplishment of such purpose; and this section was in force, substantially in its present form, prior to the compilation of 1857. This section was in force in 1893, when Act No. 291, already mentioned, was enacted by the legislature. Two years later section 487 was amended. See Pub. Acts 1895, No. 254. But this amendment related only to the matter of indebtedness, and cannot affect the question before us. Were it a new act, giving new powers to the supervisors, the presumption would be that the legislature did not intend to include the territory affected by the previous special legislation, unless there could be found in the general legislation evidence of such intention. See End. Interp. St. � 223; Regents of Michigan University v. Auditor General (Mich.) 66 N.W. 956. See, also, a discussion of this question, and authorities collected, in City of Lansing v. Board of State Auditors (Mich.) 69 N.W. 726. It would seem manifest that if a special act is to be considered so clearly expressive of a legislative intent to deal with a particular locality as to exclude such locality from the operation of a general statute of later date, when...