Royal Oak Tp. v. City of Berkley, 27.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 27.,27. |
| Citation | 309 Mich. 572,16 N.W.2d 83 |
| Parties | ROYAL OAK TP. v. CITY OF BERKLEY. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit in chancery by the Township of Royal Oak against the City of Berkley for an accounting of respective personal property rights of the parties arising from the incorporation of the defendant city out of the unincorporated part of the plaintiff township, wherein defendant city filed a cross-bill also asking for an accounting. From an insufficient decree, defendant city appeals.
Decree modified, and as so modified, affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Oakland County, in Chancery; H. Russel Holland, Judge.
Glenn C. Gillespie and Carl A. Braun, both of Pontiac, and Franklin E. Morris, of Ferndale, for plaintiff and appellee.
J. Harold Steffes, of Berkley, and Arthur E. Moore, of Royal Oak, for defendant and appellant.
This is a bill in chancery filed by the township of Royal Oak against the city of Berkley for an accounting of their respective personal property rights arising from the incorporation of the city of Berkley out of an unincorporated part of the township. The city by answer denies any indebtedness and by cross bill also asks for an accounting. The case was heard on proofs regarding certain disputed issues, the facts being stipulated as to other issues, and decree was entered for a substantial amount in favor of the city. The city appeals, claiming the court erred as a matter of law in some of its computations and conclusions. After issue was joined most of the matters in controversy were settled by stipulation filed in the case as follows:
‘It is hereby stipulated and agreed that on April 4, 1932 defendant, city of Berkley, was incorporated from a portion of the territory formerly included within plaintiff township, at which time the assessed valuation of the territory detached represented 17.72856 per cent of the total assessed valuation of plaintiff township.
‘It is further stipulated and agreed that the following statement of assets and liabilities of plaintiff township, prepared by defendant, sets forth the book value of the assets and liabilities of plaintiff township and is accepted by the parties hereto as the basis for a division of the assets and liabilities of plaintiff township, subject to such modifications as may be made thereto when the legal question hereinafter set forth shall have been decided by the court:
‘The parties hereto are not in agreement as to that portion of the foregoing statement as to ‘liabilities,’ included within the lines as above set forth, and it is mutually agreed that testimony thereon shall be presented by the respective parties and the court shall determine the questions presented as a matter of law.
‘It is stipulated and agreed that testimony will be submitted by the respective parties concerning Berkley's right to participate in certain uncollected taxes and money received from the ‘so-called’ scavenger sales, together with testimony concerning the right of Berkley to receive interest on any amount which may be found to be owing to it.
‘It is further stipulated and agreed that all questions concerning the liability of defendant, city of Berkley, on special assessment bonds, issued by plaintiff township prior to the date of incorporation of said city, shall be reserved for further consideration of the court in another cause now pending, and, the decree to be entered herein shall provide that, if necessary, a supplemental decree shall be entered herein after the decision of said question.'
The township produced testimony by a certified public accountant employed as its auditor continuously since 1935. The defendant produced the testimony of the accountant who had audited its books since 1932. Comprehensive audits were received as exhibits. Nothing of interest would be accomplished by including in this opinion the details of the extensive computations which appear in the record. The accounting was heard by the circuit judge on the proofs as narrowed down by the stipulation. The questions before us for decision concern the four items totaling $127,865.45 in that portion of the stipulation hereinbefore quoted appearing between the heavy lines. The accuracy of the other figures adduced is not in issue.
No serious question arises over the first two items in the disputed area of the stipulation. They represent money borrowed by the township and are a liability of the township for which the city must stand its proportionate share. The applicable part of the statute governing these items provides:
‘* * * The indebtedness and liabilities of every city, village and township, a part of which shall be annexed to a city shall be assumed by the city to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banish v. City of Hamtramck
...allowed as part of the damage, Fitzpatrick v. Ritzenhein (1962), 367 Mich. 326, 333, 116 N.W.2d 894; Township of Royal Oak v. City of Berkley (1944), 309 Mich. 572, 583, 16 N.W.2d 83; and in Mitchell v. Reolds Farms Co. (1934), 268 Mich. 301, 311, 256 N.W. 445, where interest was allowed.5 ......
-
Commissioner of Ins. v. Arcilio
...property' connotes intangible as well as tangible personal property and must include choses in action." Royal Oak Twp. v. City of Berkley, 309 Mich. 572, 580, 16 N.W.2d 83 (1944). Here, respondents argue that they are not seeking to attach or interfere with an asset of the rehabilitation re......
-
Fodale v. Waste Mgt. of Mich.
...property' connotes intangible as well as tangible personal property and must include choses in action." Royal Oak Twp. v. City of Berkley, 309 Mich. 572, 580, 16 N.W.2d 83 (1944). Options, like choses in action, are intangible property interests. See Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.) (defini......
-
Hazel Park Nonpartisan Taxpayers Ass'n v. Royal Oak Tp.
...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 the claims of the parties as follows: The contention of the township of Roya......