People v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 14 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 120.,120. |
| Citation | 241 Mich. 497,217 N.W. 902 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ROBINSON et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Recorder's Court of Detroit; W. McKay Skillman, Judge.
Rose Robinson and another were convicted of violating Comp. Laws 1915, § 15385, and they bring exceptions. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench. William W. Potter, Atty. Gen., and Robert M. Toms, Pros. Atty., and Frank B. Ferguson, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for plaintiff.
Chawke & Sloan and William J. Shea, all of Detroit, for defendants.
Defendants were convicted of violating section 15385, C. L. 1915. The information charged that they fraudulently embezzled and disposed of certain household goods on July 21, 1926, which they had obtained under a lease or conditional sales agreement the day before. There is one important question involved, and but one meriting discussion. The goods were obtained under a lease or conditional sales agreement entered into with the People's Outfitting Company, a Michigan corporation. This corporation had filed a report with the secretary of state, the details of which report we shall presently consider.
Defendants' counsel insist that this company was bound to file a report complying with section 5, chapter 2, part 5, of Act 84, Public Acts 1921, and another report complying with section 7 of Act 85, Public Acts 1921, as amended by Act 233, Public Acts 1923, and that it had not done so; hence the contract was void, and that before defendants can be convicted of violating the statute above cited it must be established that there is a valid lease or conditional sales agreement. Counsel for defendant relies on Mishke v. Eddy Realty Co., 217 N. W. 900 () to sustain their contention. A rehearing was ordered in that case, and for this reason the opinion has been withheld from publication. In the motion for rehearing the Attorney General joined. At this writing the opinion on rehearing has not been prepared, and the writer will therefore express his personal views of the applicable law to the instant case.
Upon the rehearing in the Mishke Case, it has been made to appear to the court that, after the enactment of Acts 84 and 85 of the Public Acts of 1921, the secretary of state, whose duty it was under both acts to prepare blanks and furnish them corporations, consulted with and was advised by the Attorney General that if one blank was prepared, which embodied all the information required by both acts, it could be used, and, if properly filled out and filed would be a compliance with both acts. The acts were companion acts and were approved on succeeding days. Both required the filing of reports during July and August. The blank was prepared, and on the advice of the Attorney General that it was a sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minor Walton Bean Co. v. Mich. Unemployment Comp. Comm'n
...v. Goodrich, 208 Mich. 646, 175 N.W. 1009;Commerce-Guardian Trust & Savings Bank v. State, 228 Mich. 316, 200 N.W. 267;People v. Robinson, 241 Mich. 497, 217 N.W. 902; 36 Cyc. 1141.’ See, also, McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolate Co., 283 U.S. 488, 51 S.Ct. 510, 75 L.Ed. 1183;Brewster v. Gage, 28......
-
Wayne Cnty. v. Fuller
...v. Goodrich, 208 Mich. 646, 175 N. W. 1009;Commerce-Guardian Trust & Savings Bank v. State, 228 Mich. 316, 200 N. W. 267;People v. Robinson, 241 Mich. 497, 217 N. W. 902; 36 Cyc. 1141. ‘The courts give great weight to a construction placed upon an act of Congress by the Executive Department......
-
Derouin v. Yeager
...646, 175 N.W. 1009; Commerce-Guardian Trust & Savings Bank v. State of Michigan (1924), 228 Mich. 316, 200 N.W. 267; People v. Robinson (1928), 241 Mich. 497, 217 N.W. 902. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Jackson (1930), 280 U.S. 183, 193, 50 S.C......
-
Aller v. Detroit Police Dep't Trial Bd.
...the courts, should be given considerable weight. Board of Education v. Goodrich, 208 Mich. 646, 652, 175 N.W. 1009, and People v. Robinson, 241 Mich. 497, 217 N.W. 902. It does not appear that appellees' and cross-appellants' rights were prejudiced by an original hearing before the trial bo......