Randall v. Township Bd. of Meridian Tp., Ingham County

• Decision Date: 06 June 1955
• Docket Number: No. 52,52
• Citation: 70 N.W.2d 728,342 Mich. 605
• Parties: Kenneth C. RANDALL and Marian G. Randall, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The TOWNSHIP BOARD OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, INGHAM COUNTY, Michigan, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 728

70 N.W.2d 728

342 Mich. 605

Kenneth C. RANDALL and Marian G. Randall, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The TOWNSHIP BOARD OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, INGHAM COUNTY, Michigan, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 52.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 6, 1955.

Gregg, Glassen, Parr & Rhead, Lansing, H. W. Glassen, Lansing, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Fred C. Newman, Lansing, for defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Justice.

Plaintiffs, lot owners, sought to enjoin defendant from amending the township zoning ordinance to change property adjacent to theirs from agricultural to a commercial classification. The ground urged was insufficiency of the notice of public hearing on the proposed amendment before the township zoning board, required to be published under C.L.1948, § 125.279, Stat.Ann. § 5.2963(9). The trial court entered a decree dismissing plaintiffs' bill of complaint for failure to exhaust their legal remedies by way of appearance and protest of the amendment before the township board and petition for referendum. Plaintiffs appeal.

Defendant says that plaintiffs have no right to injunctive relief because they have no vested or contractual right to keep the adjacent property in its present zoning classification, citing Gratton v. Conte, 364 Pa. 578, 73 A.2d 381. See also annotations commencing at 138 A.L.R. 500 for the proposition that such vested or contractual rights do not exist. It does not follow, however, that plaintiffs have no standing in a court of equity to challenge the validity of an amendment to the zoning ordinance on the grounds of arbitrariness or unreasonableness of the proposed change or irregularities in the porceedings. Possible adverse effects of the change on their property create in them such an interest in the subject matter as to entitle them to maintain an action for that purpose. Crozier v. County Commissioners, 202 Md. 501, 97 A.2d 296, and annotations commencing at 37 A.L.R.2d 1143.

We need not determine the controverted question of defectiveness of the notice or whether plaintiffs have exhausted their legal remedies, inasmuch as we hold the court to be without jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed.

The function of the township board in enacting a zoning ordinance is legislative. Dearborn Tp. v. Dearborn Tp. Clerk, 334 Mich. 673, 55 N.W.2d 201. 'The courts may not direct or control legislative action.' Board of Education of City of Detroit v. Superintendent of Public Instruction, 319 Mich. 436, 29 N.W.2d 902, 904. '* * * injunctive or consequential relief to compel action by the legislature may not be granted by the court * * *.' Id. (syllabus). To same effect, see City of Jackson v. Commissioner of Revenue, 316 Mich. 694, 26 N.W.2d 569.

'While it is within the province of the courts to pass upon the validity of statutes and ordinances, courts may not legislate nor undertake to compel legislative bodies to do so one way or another. Attorney General ex rel. Graves v. Mayor and Common Council of City of Adrian, 164 Mich. 143, 146, 129 N.W. 44; School District of City of Pontiac v. City of Pontiac, 206 Mich. 338, 247 N.W. 474, 787; City of...