Hunt v. Ziegler
| Decision Date | 26 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | J,No. 49,49 |
| Citation | 350 Mich. 309,86 N.W.2d 345 |
| Parties | Fred HUNT and Christine Hunt, husband and wife, F. W. Cooper and Maline Cooper, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Charles M. ZIEGLER, State Highway Commissioner for the State of Michigan, Defendant-Appellant. une Term. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Thomas M. Kavanagh, Atty. Gen., Joseph A. Sullivan, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Victor H. Meier, Samuel D. Frane, Assts. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
R. Burr Cochran, Muskegon, for appellees Hunt.
Harold M. Street, Muskegon, for appellees F. W. Cooper, et ux.
Before the Entire Bench.
A court of equity speaks from this record in favor of individuals and against an executive officer of our state government. Another court, sitting correspondingly in chancery on appeal, reviews the same record to determine but one encompassing question; whether the decree pronounced below is in accord with principles and maxims of equity. Such is our exordium of approach to a case where one of the parties claims he is immune from the ordinary processes of equity.
Plaintiffs Hunt were--and yet remain so far as the record discloses--owners of certain business property situated in Muskegon county's Muskegon township. When the events we are to consider took place the Hunts' tavern business, so conducted on the premises, was thriving and prosperous. The location was described by the chancellor as being an especially advantageous one, 'due to its proximity to industrial plants nearby.', and a long term lease of a portion thereof produced a rental income to the Hunts of $60 per month.
In 1953 most of the mentioned property was marked for acquisition by the state highway department in connection with planned construction of the 'Norton-Glade Expressway, a super through traffic route of US-16 leading from a location south of Muskegon Heights around the residential sections to the heart of down-town Muskegon'. One Seeley, a veteran right of way employee of the state highway department--known in the record 'as the district buyer in Grand Rapids'--, approached the Hunts in August of 1953 for the purpose of acquiring such property in behalf of the department. The negotiations continued for some little time and they were aided by several appraisals, the integrity of which is not in serious question. Mr. Hunt, represented by a reputable attorney in the course of these negotiations, insisted he and his wife should receive the total sum of $135,000 for the portion so to be acquired and pointed particularly to the cost of acquiring corresponding new business property and of moving therto.
About this time Seeley entered into an agreement with one Grace Kuiper, then owner thereof, for acquisition of 2 nearby lots (by Seeley, incidentally--not the highway department). The purpose of such acquisition is explained this way, with full record support, in the chancellor's opinion:
'Lots 5 and 6 were not required for highway purposes, but restricted parking facilities and limited access regulations on Laketon Avenue and the Norton-Glade proposed express route made it necessary for Hunt to acquire these lots, together with lot 7, for the relocation of his business as an alternative to losing his location, his tavern license and discontinuing the business which had been highly profitable in that location under Hunt and his predecessors since 1933.'
Negotiations between Seeley and Hunt continued until final agreement was reached on a total price--to be paid the Hunts by the highway department in return for a deed to their highway-required premises--of $97,500. The acquisition price was arrived at by attributing $65,000 to 'land and buildings' and $32,500 for 'Removing and resetting tavern equipment, elevator, refrigeration, and so forth, cancellation of lease, and all damages.' The presently described option so recites.
Relying on this apparently settled agreement, the Hunts went ahead and borrowed $30,600 from the Hackley Union National Bank of Muskegon for the purpose of acquiring the intended new site--including said lots 5 and 6--and preparing to engage in business thereon.
The stated agreement between Seeley and Hunt was reduced to writing in the form of a regular highway department option and it was executed by Mr. and Mrs. Hunt under date of December 28, 1953. It was duly forwarded and processed in the general offices of the highway department, the Hunts' title having been meanwhile examined and approved by attorneys in the department. Required administrative steps toward approval and acceptance were noted, on the face of the option, in regular order starting under date of January 12, 1954 and concluding February 5, 1954. On the last mentioned date, and in pursuance of these notations, the requisite voucher for a check 1 payable to the Hunts was issued by the highway department to the auditor general's office and, under date of February 17, 1954, the state's check in the sum of $97,500, naming the Hunts and the mentioned Hackley Bank as payees, was issued and forwarded to the general offices of the highway department. By interoffice communication (dated February 26, 1954) the check was forwarded to the Grand Rapids office of the department. The communication reads:
'February 26, 1954.
'Attached find the following State Warrants payable to the persons named thereon, and documents to be executed when the Warrants are delivered:
'Very truly yours,
'Signed: G. M. Foster, Chief Deputy Commissioner.'
In the meantime, a number of dealings by Seeley in conjunction with acquisition in the Grand Rapids area of highway rights of way came under suspicion. Seeley was discharged from his position and criminal proceedings were instituted against him. Lovell E. Brillhart, another veteran employee of the department and addressee of the above interoffice communication, was detailed to assume Seeley's duties for the department.
March 9, 1954, Brillhart received a letter from chief deputy highway commissioner Foster calling on Brillhart for 'substantiation of the sum of $32,500 for moving of equipment and so forth.' Brillhart carried the mentioned check--and form of deed to be signed by the Hunts--in his briefcase some 3 or 4 months, meanwhile seeking (according to his testimony) to substantiate the mentioned item of $32,500. He conferred with Hunt several times during this period and, according to Hunt and the chancellor's finding, regularly assured Hunt that the option had been accepted and that he--Hunt--would be paid as soon as the 'Seeley investigation' was over. According to Hunt, he was thereafter put off by similar and repeated representations of Brillhart until May of 1955, with no conveyed hint of rescission in the meantime. Finally, and in late September of the same year, the highway commissioner instituted statutory proceedings designed toward acquisition of the Hunts' said property. Brillhart in the meantime had returned (under date of June 28, 1954) the mentioned check to the administrative offices of the highway department. It was held in the latter office until May 26, 1955, at which time it was returned to the auditor general's office for cancellation. The Hunts had no knowledge of these interdepartmental actions and were not apprised of the highway department's ultimately disclosed intentions until the mentioned condemnation proceedings were instituted.
We have related, as briefly as possible, the facts and proceedings which led up to filing of the instant bill and cross-bill. The bill was filed by the Hunts, joined by 2 of their lessees, promptly after institution of the aforesaid statutory proceedings. The bill charges that the option was duly accepted by the department and, considering reliance of plaintiffs Hunt on the stated asseverations of Seeley and Brillhart to their detriment, that it would amount to gross inequity to permit the department to rescind what the bill charges became an effective and enforceable contract of sale to the defendant highway commissioner. The bill seeks an injunction to restrain the mentioned statutory proceedings; decree declaring binding effect of the allegedly accpeted option as a contract between the Hunts and the highway commissioner; specific performance of such contract, and a money decree for payment.
The defendant highway commissioner, having unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the bill for reasons now abandoned, 2 filed a cross-bill against the Hunts alleging materially as follows:
'Cross-plaintiff is informed and believes that the course of dealing between said Seeley and cross-defendant Hunt hereinbefore described was unlawful and fraudulent as to cross-plaintiff and says that it was entered into without cross-plaintiff's consent and constituted a fraud against cross-plaintiff and the State of Michigan and rendered void and nugatory any contract relative to the land described in the option attached to the bill of complaint, if it should be found, contrary to cross-plaintiff's claims, that there was a contract between cross-plaintiff and cross-defendants relative to the land described in the option attached to the bill of complaint.'
The cross-bill prays:
The issues made by these pleadings came to due trial in the Muskegon circuit before the honorable Thomas N. Robinson, circuit judge presiding, and resulted in a decree granting injunctive and other relief to plaintiffs 3 and dismissing the cross-bill. The highway commissioner appeals.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenfield Const. Co. Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of State Highways
...Act, the former is superseded and limited by the latter. To the extent inconsistent with our opinion today, Hunt v. State Highway Commissioner, 350 Mich. 309, 86 N.W.2d 345 (1957) is expressly overruled. We have heretofore held that a statutory relinquishment of common law sovereign immunit......
-
City of Kenosha v. State
...(1946), 188 Misc. 657, 65 N.Y.S.2d 712; Jackson County v. McGlasson (1934), 167 Tenn. 311, 69 S.W.2d 887; Hunt v. State Highway Comm. (1957), 350 Mich. 309, 86 N.W.2d 345; Security Nat. Bank of Long Island v. Sabatelli (1962), 38 Misc.2d 503, 236 N.Y.Supp.2d 775.In State ex rel. Eagleton v.......
-
Burch v. Mackie
...seeking a mandamus under the guise or misnomer of a mandatory injunction.' Counsel for appellants cites and relies on Hunt v. State Highway Commissioner, 350 Mich. 309. 86 N.W.2d 345. That was a suit in equity to enjoin condemnation proceedings and to obtain specific performance of an agree......
-
Bales v. Michigan State Highway Commission, Docket No. 26273
...project in violation of plaintiffs' hereinbefore stated constitutional right. Thus, the case is analogous to Hunt v. State Highway Commissioner, 350 Mich. 309, 86 N.W.2d 345 (1957), and the circuit court did not lack jurisdiction. See also Calcatera v. Civil Service Commission, 52 Mich.App.......