Powers v. Dignan

• Decision Date: 11 October 1944
• Docket Number: No. 280.,280.
• Citation: Powers v. Dignan, 309 Mich. 530, 16 N.W.2d 62 (Mich. 1944)
• Parties: POWERS v. DIGNAN, Secretary of State.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

309 Mich. 530

16 N.W.2d 62

POWERS

v.DIGNAN, Secretary of State.

No. 280.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 11, 1944.

Mandamus by James Powers, doing business as Powers Pontiac Company, against Herman H. Dignan, Secretary of State of the State of Michigan, to direct defendant to issue a motor vehicle dealer's license.

Petition denied without prejudice.

Before the Entire Bench.

Iverson & Allin, of Detroit, for petitioner.

Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol.Gen., of Lansing, and Daniel J. O'Hara and T. Carl Holbrook, Asst. Attys.Gen., for defendant.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

PlaintiffJames Powers, doing business as Powers Pontiac Sales Company, seeks a writ of mandamus directing defendantHerman H. Dignan, Secretary of State, to forthwith issue a motor vehicle dealer's license as provided for in ActNo. 46, Pub.Acts 1921, as amended, 1 Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 4658-4676, (Stat.Ann. §§ 9.1471-9.1491).

An order to show cause was issued and the secretary of state filed an answer and return in which he claims that Powers, as president of Powers Motor Sales, Inc., a Michigan corporation, has been ‘guilty of such fraudulent misconduct as a motor vehicle dealer as would, under the terms of the statute, bar him from receiving such a license.’The allegations of fraud are that, while Powers was president of this corporation, he conducted its affairs in such a manner that it is still indebted to the State for sales taxes, and that the records of the corporation were kept so as to conceal such indebtedness in the amount of several thousand dollars, and the corporation, under Powers' direction, unfairly competed with others in the same line of business.

Defendant's return states that he‘quite inadvertently and inadvisedly failed strictly to comply’ with the provisions of § 14 of the act in question (1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 4671, as amended byPub.Acts 1943, No. 151, Stat.Ann.Supp. § 9.1482), which reads in part as follows:

‘* * * The secretary of state shall be authorized, after a hearing, notice of which shall be given 10 days in advance, for good cause shown, to revoke the license of any motor vehicle dealer or to refuse to issue a license as provided in section 14f of this act. * * *'

He claims, however, that the matter is still open to lawful inquiry, and avers that he is ‘now ready and willing to accord plaintiff all of the rights guaranteed by the statute aforesaid, to prepare and serve upon him written charges of misconduct, to give due and timely notice of hearing, and to have present a competent stenographer in order that a complete record may be made available for judicial review in this or other appropriate proceedings.'

Defendant further submits:

‘(1) that neither justice nor the public interests would be served by the issuance of a preemptory writ of mandamus, at this time, requiring the secretary of state forthwith to grant to plaintiff the license demanded;

‘(2) that, although plaintiff was inadvertently denied due process, and has not yet been accorded a proper hearing, he nevertheless, because of his acts of misconduct, does not stand in this court with clean hands, and he is not entitled to the issuance of the discretionary writ of mandamus;

‘(3) that both justice and the public interests require, before the license be granted, or a...