Hawley v. Snider
| Decision Date | 28 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 62,62 |
| Citation | 346 Mich. 181,77 N.W.2d 754 |
| Parties | Victor K. HAWLEY, Virginia Hawley, Louie Rutan, Marilyn Rutan, Russell Watts, Edward Shuster and Erwin Watts, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Raymond SNIDER, Boyd Wetzel, Edward Working, Albert E. Slayton and Jay Lewis, as members of the Napoleon Rural Agricultural School District of the Counties of Jackson and Washtenaw, and the Napoleon Rural Agricultural School District of the Counties of Jackson and Washtenaw, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
George R. Campbell, Jackson, for appellants.
Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, Detroit, F. M. Thrun, Lansing, for appellees.
Before the Entire Bench.
On November 8, 1955, the following bond issue was submitted to the electors of the Napoleon Rural Agricultural School District:
'Shall Napoleon Rural Agricultural School District, Jackson and Washtenaw Counties, Michigan, borrow the sum of not to exceed one Million Three Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($1,360,000) and issue its bonds therefor, for the purpose of erecting and furnishing a new high school building, an additional elementary schoolhouse and an addition to the present elementary schoolhouse, and acquiring additional land for site purposes?'
The issue was defeated.
On December 13, 1955, the electors approved the following bond issue:
'Shall Napoleon Rural Agricultural School District, Jackson and Washtenaw Counties, Michigan, borrow the sum of not to exceed Five Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($525,000) and issue its bonds therefor, for the purpose of remodeling and partially refurnishing the present high school building, and erecting and furnishing an additional elementary schoolhouse and an addition to the present elementary schoolhouse?'
Plaintiffs and appellants filed their bill of complaint to enjoin the issuing of the bonds, claiming that the vote of December 13, 1955, violated the provisions of P.A.1955, No. 269, § 511, which real in part:
'Provided further, That the same question or measure involving consolidation of school districts, annexation of entire districts, annexation or transfer of a portion of 1 school district to another, or bonding of school districts, shall not be submitted to the voters of any school district more often than once in 6 months, anything in part 1 or part 2 of this act to the contrary notwithstanding.'
The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the same measure or question in regard to a bond issue was submitted to the electors of the district 'more often than once in 6 months.'
In denying plaintiffs' bill of complaint to enjoin the issuing of the bonds, the trial court stated:
'The court interprets the act as meaning 'substantially the same', and, in the opinion of the court, these two bond issues were not
Webster's New International Dictionary (Second Edition, Unabridged) defines the word 'same' when used as an adjective (as it is used in section 511 above), as follows:
'Being one without addition, change, or discontinuance; being no other; having one nature or individuality; identical; * * * not different in any essential regard, though viewed at different times or in different aspects or relations.'
'The ordinary meaning of the word 'same' is 'identical;' 'identical in substance or numerically;' 'of one nature, degree or amount.'' Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, Third Edition, p. 995.
The legislative history of the enactment of section 511...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Denio
... ... In interpreting a statute, words are to be given their common, generally accepted meaning. MCL 8.3a; MSA 2.212(1); Hawley v. Snider, 346 Mich. 181, 185, 77 N.W.2d 754 (1956). Furthermore, when terms are not expressly defined by a statute, a court may consult dictionary ... ...
-
Perez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
... ... Hawley v. Snider, 346 Mich. 181, 77 N.W.2d 754 (1956) ... If, in assessing statutory language in that way, we find an ambiguity which ... ...
-
Blanchard's Estate, In re
...SWAINSON, J., concurs. 1 Words should be given a common construction according to their generally accepted meaning. Hawley v. Snider, 346 Mich. 181, 77 N.W.2d 754 (1956).2 Retried and appealed, 233 Mich. 440, 207 N.W. 10 (1926).3 Also see cases cited in the decision of In re Graham Estate, ......
-
Baird v. Independent School Dist. No. 3 of Woodward County
...power to review the question sought to be presented. City of Tulsa v. Chamblee, 188 Okl. 94, 95, 106 P.2d 796, 797 (1940).5 346 Mich. 181, 77 N.W.2d 754 (Mich.1956).6 Webster's Third International Dictionary, Third Edition, Unabridged, at 2007 (1961).7 Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition......