People v. Gottlieb, 63
| Decision Date | 22 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 63,63 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. GOTTLIEB. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Jones & Theiss, marcellus, for appellant.
Leonard J. Weiner, Three Rivers, Raymond H. Dresser, Sturgis, for appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
January 5, 1951, the township board of Park township, St. Joseph county, enacted an ordinance or resolution making it unlawful to maintain or operate a used car lot in the township without obtaining a license therefor. 1 On April 4, 1951, the defendant was convicted in justice court of the violation of said ordinance and appealed to the circuit court, where he was again tried by the court without a jury and found not guilty The circuit judge held that the ordinance was unconstitutional and void. On leave granted, the township appeals.
Only one question is involved. Are sections 4 and 15 of the ordinance unconsttitutional? They are as follows:
Sec. 4. 'As a condition to the original granting of such license and the operation of such used car lot, as a part of said application, the applicant or applicants shall obtain from 65% of the freeholders residing in said township within 1/2 mile radius of the place where said business is proposed to be conducted, a written statement or waiver addressed to said township board recommending that such license be granted.'
See. 15. 'Said license shall be subject to revocation by said board upon failure to conduct said business in conformity with any of the rules, regulations or conditions, herein contained, or if any of the statements in the said application are found to be false, or if 65% of the freeholders residing in said township within a radius of 1 mile from the place of said business petition said township board therefor.'
The circuit judge stated his reason for holding the ordinance unconstitutional, as follows:
'It is the conclusion of this court that where an ordinance makes the right to use property contingent on the consent of other property owners there is an improper delegation of legislative power.'
The ordinance prohibits the operation of a used car lot in the township, unless the applicant first obtains a license therefor. It states that it shall be unlawful to carry on any used car business in the township without first having obtained such a license; declares that one who violates that prohibition shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and provides a penalty therefor.
Chilvers v. People, 11 Mich. 43.
We do not agree with the trial court that there is an unlawful delegation of legislative power to freeholders, to grant or deny the issuance of such a license. Section 4 of the ordinance requires the applicant, as a part of the application, to obtain and file a written 'statement or waiver' of 65% of the freeholders residing in the township within a 1/2 mile radius of the proposed location of the used car lot, 'recommending' that the license be granted. But the ordinance itself does not require the township board to grant the license upon such recommendation, nor to deny a license in the absence of such a waiver. In that respect it differs from the defendant which was in effect when the defendant first attempted to install a used car business in the township, which was supplanted and repealed by the ordinance here involved. The previous ordinance expressly provided:
'That no license shall be issued until the applicant shall have first obtained a consent in writing of all freeholders adjoining or bordering on the land where such business is to be conducted and 75% of all freeholders within a radius of 1 mile of the proposed location of such business.'
The power to grant or deny the license rests with the township board, notwithstanding the statement, waiver, or recommendation required to be submitted with the application. The statute, C.L.1948, § 445.502, Stat.Ann.1951 Cum.Supp. § 19.739(2), on which the authority of the township board is bottomed provides:
'The township board may in its discretion, for just cause, refuse to grant the license provided for in this act.'
In Cady v. City of Detroit, 289 Mich. 499, 286 N.W. 805, 811, the validity of an ordinance, practically the same as the one here under consideration, was upheld. Cady sought to enjoin the city of Detroit from enforcing an ordinance which required 65% of the owners of real estate within 600 feet of the Cady property to consent before a license be granted Cady to maintain an automobile trailer camp. The Court sai...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nortown Theatre Incorporated v. Gribbs
...a device unique to the instant Ordinance. It is relatively common in zoning or licensing of deleterious businesses. People v. Gottlieb, 337 Mich. 276, 59 N.W.2d 289 (1935) (a used-car business); Cady v. City of Detroit, 289 Mich. 499, 286 N.W. 805 (1939), (a trailer Plaintiffs assert that t......
-
Garfield Tp. v. Young
...providing for the licensing of junk yards operated within the township, 1 was constitutional under the authority of People v. Gottlieb, 337 Mich. 276, 59 N.W.2d 289. We said that it was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power for the ordinance to require that the petition fo......
-
Jourden v. Wyoming Tp.
...has upheld regulatory standards not basically dissimilar to that presented here. Township of Garfield v. Young, supra; People v. Gottlieb, 337 Mich. 276, 59 N.W.2d 289. We do not deal in this case with a regulation without any standards which might open the door to discriminatory or caprici......
-
Garfield Tp. v. Young, 11
...here under consideration establishes that it is substantially the same as the ordinance considered by this Court in People v. Gottlieb, 337 Mich. 276, 59 N.W.2d 289, decided June 22, 1953. These same claims of unconstitutionality were made by the defendant in that case and decided adversely......