Hill v. State

Citation170 N.W.2d 18,382 Mich. 398
Decision Date03 September 1969
Docket NumberNo. 2,J,2
PartiesDonald C. HILL and V. Joan Hill, his wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE of Michigan, with relation to State Highway Commission, Defendant and Appellee. une Term.
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

John H. Yoe, Detroit, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, John M. Roche, Asst. Attys., Gen., for defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

ADAMS, Justice.

On March 7, 1967, plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Court of Appeals in which they sought an order to require defendant to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue directed to the State Highway Commission and commanding it to institute an action to ascertain and determine the damages to plaintiffs' property as a result of establishment of the right-of-way and construction of the I--94 Expressway.

The complaint stated that plaintiffs were the owners of a lot in the city of St. Clair Shores located at the northwest corner of Edmunton Drive and Mauer Drive; that the lot had an 80-foot frontage in Mauer Drive and a side lot of 100 feet; and that their residence fronted on Mauer Drive. A drawing prepared by the Michigan State Highway Department was attached to the complaint and is displayed herein.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Plaintiffs sought to compel a proceeding by defendant to ascertain 'damages and compensation both for actual taking and for inverse condemnation as the direct result of the establishment of the right-of-way for said I--94 Expressway.'

On June 23, 1967, the Court of Appeals denied the complaint without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs to file a claim with the Court of Claims. On October 4, 1967, this Court granted leave to appeal (379 Mich. 781).

Mandamus Not Plaintiffs' Remedy

The general principles which warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus have been discussed by this Court in numerous cases. Mandamus ordinarily will not issue unless the defendant is under a clear legal duty to act and unless the complainant has no other adequate remedy. See People v. Judges of Jackson Circuit Court (1844), 1 Doug. 302; Coffin v. Board of Education of City of Detroit (1897), 114 Mich. 342, 72 N.W. 156; Waterman-Waterbury Co. v. School District No. 4 of Cato Township (1914), 183 Mich. 168, 150 N.W. 104; Sumeracki v. Stack (1934), 269 Mich. 169, 256 N.W. 843; and Toan v. McGinn (1935), 271 Mich. 28, 260 N.W. 108.

Defendant stresses that plaintiffs had a remedy in the Michigan Court of Claims under the provisions of the Court of Claims Act, Chap. 64, R.J.A. (M.C.L.A. § 600.6401 et seq. (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 27A.6401 et seq.)), § 6419 providing that the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims over certain claims and demands shall be exclusive.

In Thom v. State Highway Commissioner (1965), 376 Mich. 608, 138 N.W.2d 322, this Court held that a property owner had such a remedy. In that case, plaintiff's farm was damaged by the action of the state highway department in raising the grade of a public highway which abutted the home and outbuildings of the farm. It was held that suit in the Court of Claims to recover for such damage was proper.

Since we deem the precise nature of plaintiffs' claims for actual taking and for inverse condemnation of importance to our decision, we quote in full paragraphs 5 and 6 of plaintiffs' complaint in which the same are set forth:

'5. That prior to the establishment and construction of Edsel Ford Expressway (I--94), Mauer Drive provided access to lands and thoroughfares lying to the East of Petitioners' properties, but since the establishment of said Expressway petitioners' lands and premises have been damaged in the following particulars:

'(a) As above stated, all access to lands Easterly of petitioners' property has been obliterated by said Expressway; and the only means of ingress and egress is Westerly to Beaconsfield Avenue, so-called, and thence Southerly to Eight Mile Road or Northerly to Nine Mile Road;

'(b) The right-of-way for Mauer Drive, so-called, formerly a public thoroughfare, constituted part of petitioners' property subject to public travel, and such right-of-way has been diminished to the extent that the same provides substantially a front and side drive for a residence building northerly of petitioners' property and on Lot 110 of Notre Dame Woods Subdivisions No. 2, and likewise Edmunton Drive has been deadended at the Expressway right-of-way, as appears on Petitioners' Exhibit 'A'.

'6. That the Edsel Ford Expressway is a depressed highway to the extent of about four feet below and above average grade and a bank is created approximately four feet above the grade of petitioners' property, along and near the crest of which the defendant has constructed a fence, creating a rear yard effect for the front of petitioners' property.'

In their application for leave to appeal, this statement of those claims is made:

'Prior to the establishment and construction of I--94, Mauer Drive provided access to lands and thoroughfares to the east of the Hills' property, but this access has now been removed by reason of the fact that both Mauer Drive and Edmunton Drive are deadended at the I--94 right of way * * *. As a result, the means of ingress and egress has been cut down; the right of way for Mauer Drive, which constituted part of Hills' property, subject to the right of public travel, has been diminished to the extent that it provides substantially a front and side drive for a residence immediately to the north of Hills' property, on Lot 110 of Notre Dame Woods Subdivision No. 2; and a bank has been created along I--94 about 4 feet above the grade of Hills' property, creating a rear yard effect for the front of their property.'

We do not base our decision herein so much upon the adequacy of plaintiffs' remedy in the Court of Claims as we do upon the tenuousness of the claims themselves. In a case in which there was a clear fact situation of an unconstitutional taking of private property, the argument of an adequate remedy in the Court of Claims might not prevail. Here, however, no actual physical taking of any portion of plaintiffs' property is pled or shown.

1. Plaintiffs' right of ingress and egress on Mauer Drive, though closed to the north, remains open to the south. On Edmunton Drive, though closed to the east, it remains open to the west. In this respect, plaintiffs make no showing that they are differently treated from other members of the traveling public or property owners whose use of these streets has been restricted by the construction of the limited access Expressway.

2. The right-of-way for Mauer Drive, constituting part of plaintiffs' property subject to the easement for public travel, remains unaltered along plaintiffs' property line. No change in plaintiffs' property right is shown to have occurred as a result of construction of the Expressway.

3. The defendant's creation of a rear yard effect for the front of plain...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Mays v. Governor, No. 157335
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 29, 2020
  • Wayside Church v. Van Buren Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 10, 2017
  • Greenfield Const. Co. Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of State Highways
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1978
    ... ... Auditor General, 360 Mich. 146, 103 N.W.2d 769 (1960), that the Court of Claims does not have equitable jurisdiction ... See, also, Hill v. State Highway Commission, 382 Mich. 398, 404, 170 N.W.2d 18 (1969) and State Highway Commission v. Tremarco, 37 Mich.App. 42, 47, 194 N.W.2d 468 (1971), where the property owners claimed that there had been an unconstitutional taking of property and the remedy provided in the Court of Claims was ... ...
  • Mays v. Governor of Mich.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 29, 2020
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT