Royal Oak Tp. v. City of Pleasant Didge
Decision Date | 29 December 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 26.,26. |
Citation | 12 N.W.2d 393,307 Mich. 714 |
Parties | ROYAL OAK TP. v. CITY OF PLEASANT DIDGE. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Township of Royal Oak against the City of Pleasant Ridge to have entered a correct decree following opinion of Supreme Court as to effect of certain special assessment bonds. From a decree entered nunc pro tunc in accordance with Supreme Court's opinion in 294 N.W. 682, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Oakland County, in Chancery; H. Russel Holland, Judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Arthur E. Moore, of Royal Oak, for appellant.
Glenn C. Gillespie and Carl A. Braun, both of Pontiac, and Franklin E. Morris, of Ferndale, for appellee.
In Township of Royal Oak v. City of Pleasant Ridge, 295 Mich. 284, 294 N.W. 682, 691, we modified the opinion of the lower court and held that certain special assessment bonds were not the general obligations of the city of Pleasant Ridge. We further stated:
We also said: ‘A decree may be taken in this Court modifying the circuit court decree in the particular herein considered, but otherwise the decree heretobefore entered in this case will stand.'
Unfortunately, instead of the decree being entered in this court, it was entered in the court below and it was stated therein that the special assessment bonds were not the general obligation bonds of the township of Royal Oak. Evidently due to an oversight on the part of the attorneys, all reference to the consideration of a possible future liability, should a certain condition arise, was omitted. The attorney for the township of Royal Oak consented to certain items in the decree. He did not consent except as to form to the provision stating that the city of Pleasant Ridge was not liable for any portion of the special assessment bonds. There is no claim that when the judge signed the decree his attention was called to the omission. The decree was not a consent decree as to the question now in dispute. See Kirn v. Ioor, 266 Mich. 335, 253 N.W. 318.
Subsequently the same question arose again in another case and attention was called to the wording of the decree entered and signed by the circuit judge in the instant case. The township of Royal Oak thereupon sought to have a correct decree following our opinion entered in this court. The city of Pleasant Ridge, however, claimed that the decree was a consent decree and could not be changed. We thereupon entered an order referring the entire matter to the circuit judge who, after taking testimony, found that it was not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hazel Park Nonpartisan Taxpayers Ass'n v. Royal Oak Tp.
...269 Mich. 146, 256 N.W. 835;Township of Royal Oak v. City of Pleasant Ridge, 295 Mich. 284, 294 N.W. 682;Township of Royal Oak v. City of Pleasant Ridge, 307 Mich. 714, 12 N.W.2d 393;Township of Royal Oak v. City of Berkley, 309 Mich. 572, 16 N.W.2d 83. In the circuit court the judge stated......
-
City of Pleasant Ridge v. Royal Oak Tp.
...Mich. 146, 265 N.W. 835; Township of Royal Oak v. City of Pleasant Ridge, 295 Mich. 284, 294 N.W. 682; Township of Royal Oak v. City of Pleasant Ridge, 307 Mich. 714, 12 N.W.2d 393; Township of Royal Oak v. City of Huntington Woods, 313 Mich. 137, 20 N.W.2d 840; Hazel Park Nonpartisan Taxpa......
-
Senefsky v. Lawler, Motion No. 439.
... ... 72812 N.W.2d 387SENEFSKYv.LAWLER, Superintendent of Public Works of City of Huntington Woods, et al.Motion No. 439.Supreme Court of Michigan.Dec ... Blain, of Detroit, for appellant.Arthur E. Moore, of Royal Oak, for appellees. NORTH, Justice.This is an appeal in the nature of ... ...
-
Royal Oak Tp. v. City of Huntington Woods
...causing the decree to conform to our holding in Township of Royal Oak v. City of Pleasant Ridge, 295 Mich. 284, 294 N.W. 682, and 307 Mich. 714, 12 N.W.2d 393, and is approved. However, the consent decree, which the court amended, contained various provisions which imposed liability upon th......