Remus v. City of Grand Rapids

• Decision Date: 02 March 1936
• Docket Number: No. 131.,131.
• Citation: 274 Mich. 577,265 N.W. 755
• Parties: REMUS v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS et al. (Board of Education of City of Grand Rapids et al., Interveners).
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

274 Mich. 577

265 N.W. 755

REMUS

v.CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS et al. (Board of Education of City of Grand Rapids et al., Interveners).

No. 131.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 2, 1936.

Injunction suit by William J. Remus against the City of Grand Rapids and others, wherein the board of education of the City of Grand Rapids and the county of Kent intervened. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court of Grand Rapids; Thaddeus B. Taylor, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

David H. Crowley, Arthur E. Kidder, and Daniel J. O'Hara, all of Lansing, for appellant.

Ganson Taggart, of Grand Rapids, for appellees City of Grand Rapids, Frank V. Smith, Anthony Panfil, Frank Steinman, Judson D. Forsythe, and Board of Education of City of Grand Rapids.

Bartel J. Jonkman, Pros. Atty., and Fred N. Searl, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Grand Rapids, for appellee County of Kent.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

The parties, agreeing upon the desirability of a final construction of the statute involved in this cause, have stipulated the facts and appellees have waived their motion to dismiss for the reason that Comp.Laws 1929, § 3507, prohibits the issuance of an injunction to restrain the collection or assessment of a tax.

Plaintiff is an honorably discharged soldier of the United States Army who served in the 32d Regiment of Michigan Volunteers from May 11 to October 27, 1898, during the war with Spain.

He filed an affidavit on January 31, 1935, with the city assessors of Grand Rapids claiming an exemption of his homestead from taxation, but neither the city commission, board of education, nor board of supervisors passed any resolution allowing the exemption.

Plaintiff says his property, being of a less assessed value than $2,000, is exempt from taxation by reason of the statute, Comp.Laws 1929, § 3395, as amended by Pub.Acts 1933, No. 243, Mason's Supplement, while defendants say that the affirmative action of the various governing bodies is indispensable. The parties agree in substance that the act is susceptible of either construction and ask us to say which is the correct view.

The trial court denied the relief sought by plaintiff and dismissed his bill of complaint.

The General Property Tax Law, Act No. 206 of Public Acts of 1893, as amended, being Comp.Laws 1929, § 3389 et seq., as amended, contains various exemptions of real property from taxation. Mason's 1935 Supplement to Comp.Laws of 1929, § 3395, subsection 11, reads as follows:

‘All real estate to the value of two thousand dollars used and owned as a homestead by any soldier or sailor of the federal government who served three months or more, or who was honorably discharged in less than three months of service because of disability as the result of service, during the Philippine insurrection, the China relief expedition, the Spanish-American, Indian, Civil or Mexican war, and who shall have attained the age of fifty years, and all real estate to the value of two thousand dollars used and owned as a homestead by any wife or widow of such soldier or sailor: Provided, however, That should any such homesteadexceed in value the sum of two thousand dollars, it shall be exempt only to the amount of such sum: Provided further, That any soldier or sailor or the wife or widow of any such soldier or sailor desiring to accept the benefits named in this section as to the exemption from taxation shall annually make and file with the supervisor or assessing officer an affidavit stating under oath that he was a soldier or sailor of the federal government during the Philippine insurrection, the China relief expedition, the Civil, Indian, Mexican or Spanish-American war for a period of not less than three months, or was honorably discharged in less than three months of service because of disability as the result of service and in case it be the wife or widow of a soldier or sailor making such application, such affidavit must state that she is the wife or widow of a soldier or sailor of the federal government at the present time, who served not less than three months as such soldier or sailor, or was honorably discharged in less than three months of service because of disability as the result of service, during the Philippine insurrection, the China relief expedition, the Spanish-American, Indian, Civil or Mexican war. The said affidavit shall be sworn to before said supervisor, assessing officer or any officer authorized to administer oaths and then filed with the said officer in his office, where the same shall be open to inspection. Any person making a false affidavit in any particular for the purpose of exemption from taxation shall be deemed to be guilty of the crime of perjury, and punished accordingly: Provided, however, That this exemption shall not operate to relieve from the payment of taxes any of the persons hereinbefore enumerated who are the owners of taxable property of greater value than five thousand dollars.

‘Any county, township, school district, incorporated city or village in this state, by a two-thirds vote of the governing body thereof, is hereby empowered to grant a similar exemption from taxation by such county, township, school district, incorporated city or village, respectively, as is provided in subdivision eleven of this section in the case of the exemption from the state property tax. (As Am.1931, Act 42, p. 55, Imd.Eff.Apr. 23; 1933, Act 243, Eff. Oct. 17.)’

The controlling question for determination is the intent of the Legislature.

“In the construction of a particular statute, or in the interpretation of any of its provisions, all acts relating to the same subject, or having the same general purpose, should be read in connection with it, as together constituting one law. The endeavor should be made, by tracing the history of legislation on the subject, to ascertain the uniform and consistent purpose of the Legislature, or to discover how the policy of the Legislature with reference to the subject-matter has been changed or modified from time to time.' 36 Cyc. 1147-1149.' Quoted in Miles ex rel. Kamferbeek v. Fortney, 223 Mich. 552, 558, 194 N.W. 605, 607.

We take judicial notice of the facts shown by the journals of the House of Representatives and Senate. Wilson v. Atwood, 270 Mich. 317, 321, 258 N.W. 773.

Act No. 243 of Public Acts of 1933 as originally passed by the House did not contain the last paragraph of subdivision 11; it was added in the Senate and concurred in by the House. See House Journal, 1933, vol. 2, pp. 1992 and 2012, and Senate Journal, 1933, vol. 2, pp. 1413 and 1503.

This is the history of the statute in question. Act No. 206 of 1893 did not contain any exemption of the homesteads of veterans. The exemption first appeared in Act No. 309 of the Public Acts of 1909 by the addition of subdivision 11 of section 7 and was limited to ‘any soldier or sailor of the Federal Government who served three months or more during the Civil War,’ or his widow and on homestead property not exceeding $1,200 in value. Act No. 174 of the Public Acts of 1911 extended the exemption to those who served in the Mexican War, their wives or widows, and reduced the amount to $1,000. Act No. 331 of the Public Acts of 1919 further extended the exemption to those who served three months or more during the Spanish-American War, their wives or widows, retaining the maximum of $1,000, but adding to subdivision 11 an entirely new method of treating the exemption, viz., the city, village, or township treasurer was required to prepare a statement of all exemptions claimed under the subdivision, which was to be forwarded to the Auditor General, who in turn was to draw on the state treasurer for the amount of exemptions allowed. The local taxing unit was then to be reimbursed out of the general fund by the state treasurer for the amount of such warrant. The act required the addition to the general state tax in each year an amount sufficient to reimburse the general fund. Act No. 55 of 1925 increased the amount of exemption to $2,000; Act No. 118 of 1927 added those who served during the Philippine insurrection, and the China relief expedition; and Act No. 42 of 1931 added those who served in the Indian War, all without any material change in the manner of handling the exemption and still keeping the burden on the general fund of the state.

In the year 1933 a tremendous change occurred in the taxation policy of this state. Theretofore the greater burden of taxation was upon real property. At the November election of 1932, the people ratified a proposed amendment to the Constitution limiting the total amount of taxes assessed against property for all purposes in any one year to 1 1/2 per cent. of the assessed valuation, etc. See article 10, § 21, Constitution of state of Michigan. Consequently, the Legislature of 1933 was required to make many changes in the various tax laws, one of which included the adoption of a general sales tax. Act No. 167 of 1933, section 3663-1 et seq.,...