Heinze v. St. Joseph Tp. School Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 08 June 1953
• Docket Number: No. 25,25
• Citation: 58 N.W.2d 920,336 Mich. 552
• Parties: HEINZE et al. v. ST. JOSEPH TP. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 920

58 N.W.2d 920

336 Mich. 552

HEINZE et al. v. ST. JOSEPH TP. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1.

No. 25.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 8, 1953.

Arthur G. Preston, Jr., St. Joseph, for plaintiffs F. George Heinze, Franklin S. Colby and School Dist. of City of St. Joseph.

John T. Ryan, St. Joseph, for plaintiffs F. George Heinze and Franklin S. Colby.

John L. Crow, Benton Harbor, for St. Joseph Tp. School Dist. No. 1, defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

BOYLES, Justice.

The St. Joseph city school district and 2 resident taxpayers filed this bill of complaint to enjoin the defendant St. Joseph township school district from exercising any authority over a certain area in the township which plaintiffs claim had been legally annexed to the city school district. The circuit judge denied the relief sought, dismissed the bill of complaint, and the plaintiffs appeal.

On April 28, 1952, at an election held in the township and city areas affected by the proposed annexation, a majority of the electors voted for the annexation. On May 2, 1952, the legislature enacted and gave immediate effect to an amendment ¹ to P.A.1927, No. 319, pt. 2, ch. 3, § 17, General school code, ¹ adding an additional condition to annexation by requiring a separate affirmative vote in the territory to be annexed, approving such annexation. This amendment is the cause of the present litigation.

On May 7, 1952, copies of the proceedings were filed in the offices of the county clerk and the secretary of State, and on May 12 the annexation of the additional territory was completed by resolution of the board of education, in conformity with the statute. Probably this was done, on May 7 and May 12, without knowledge of the amendment given immediate effect on May 2 requiring the additional affirmative vote of approval. In any event, if the amendment effective May 2 is upheld in the present litigation, the acts taken May 7 and May 12 did not legally complete the annexation. It imposed an added requirement to the process of completing the annexation, as follows:

'And provided, That there is an affirmative vote in an annexation election in the school district or districts in the territory to be annexed approving such consolidation. The board or boards of education having authority in such school district or districts shall call such annexation elections within 30 days after the territory in question has been annexed.'

The board of education of the township school district, in compliance with said requirement, within 30 days called said election, it was held, and the electors voted about 2 to 1 against the consolidation. Thereupon the board of education of said township school district continued to exercise authority over its school district, which action the present suit by the city school district seeks to enjoin.

Two questions, only, are here urged by the plaintiff appellants. The first is that the immediate effect given by the legislature to said P.A.1952, No. 229, May 2, is contrary to the Michigan Constitution 1908, art. 5, § 21, and therefore a nullity. The pertinent part of said section provides:

'No act shall take effect or be in force until the expiration of 90 days from the end of the session at which the same is passed, except that the legislature may give immediate effect to acts making appropriations and acts immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety by a 2/3 vote of the members elected to each house.'

Counsel for appellants argue that said P.A.1952, No. 229, was not immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety. They quote from and rely entirely on dissenting opinions in some of the decisions of this Court. See Newberry v. Starr, 247 Mich. 404, beginning on page 412, 225 N.W. 885, and Todd v. Hull, 288 Mich. 521, beginning on page 542, 285 N.W. 46. They do not cite any decision upholding their contention that the immediate effect provision in the amendment of said section 17, by P.A.1952, No. 229, is invalid on the ground that it contravenes art. 5, § 21, Michigan Constitution 1908. We find nothing in the present case to make an exception to the rules announced in many decisions of the Court upholding the immediate effect provision as valid. ² Seemingly in point, in Newberry v. Starr, supra, the Court held that giving immediate effect to an act providing that school districts under certain circumstances would constitute a single school district does not violate said art. 5, § 21, and said [247 Mich. 404, 225 N.W. 887]:

'The Legislature may have considered, in the interest of public health at least, it was immediately necessary to secure co-ordination and co-operation of the agencies of certain cities and school districts described in the act, that each should embrace the same territory. The act relates to important state agencies having to do with preservation of public health, peace, and safety.'

Appellants' second claim is that the 1952 amendment violates the due process clauses of the United States and State Constitutions. ³ In their brief they argue that the amendment deprives the plaintiffs of property without due process of law.

The stumbling block in appellants' progress toward that end lies in the fact that the amendment does not deprive the plaintiffs of any property rights. The plaintiff city school district has no property rights in the territory of te township school district unless it has been annexed to the city school district in conformity with the statutory requirements. That would seem to be elementary. Nor do the individual plaintiffs have any property rights in the property of the school district. Attorney General ex rel. Kies v. Lowrey, 131 Mich. 639, 92 N.W. 289, Id., 199 U.S. 233, 26 S.Ct. 27...