Royal Oak Tp. v. City of Pleasant Didge

Decision Date29 December 1943
Docket NumberNo. 26.,26.
Citation12 N.W.2d 393,307 Mich. 714
PartiesROYAL OAK TP. v. CITY OF PLEASANT DIDGE.
CourtMichigan 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.

BUTZEL, Justice.

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: ‘The circuit judge found: ‘It is undisputed that the plaintiff township had advanced no money out of its general funds for the redemption of any of said bonds.’ Nor does it appear from this record that because of inability to obtain from the special assessments or reassessments funds sufficient to pay the bonds in full the township may eventually have to pay a balance due on these bonds from its general funds. Should such a condition ultimately come about, there might then be room for the contention that the contingent statutory liability to advance money from the township's general funds had accrued and that payment, when made, was necessitated because it was then a general obligation of the township contracted before the severance of township territory by the defendant city. In that event the question would be presented as to whether the defendant city of Pleasant Ridge would not be liable for payment of its proportionate share of the general liability of the township which had accrued because of inability, if such should happen, to derive sufficient funds from the special assessments or re-assessments to discharge in full the bond indebtedness. Suffice to say that on this appeal we do not have before us nor are we herein passing upon such a case; but a reservation might well be made in the decree to be entered in this case covering such a contingency.'

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
6 cases
  • Hazel Park Nonpartisan Taxpayers Ass'n v. Royal Oak Tp.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 17 Abril 1947
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 12 Octubre 1950
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 29 Diciembre 1943
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 3 Diciembre 1945
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT