Royal Oak Tp. v. City of Berkley, No. 27.

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtBOYLES
Citation309 Mich. 572,16 N.W.2d 83
Docket NumberNo. 27.
Decision Date11 October 1944
PartiesROYAL OAK TP. v. CITY OF BERKLEY.

309 Mich. 572
16 N.W.2d 83

ROYAL OAK TP.
v.
CITY OF BERKLEY.

No. 27.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 11, 1944.


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.

[16 N.W.2d 84]

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.


BOYLES, Justice.

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:

+-------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦“Assets ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------¦
                ¦“Cash on Hand ¦¦¦$80,178.61 ¦
                +-------------------------------------------+-----------¦
                ¦Collections S.A. Rolls 1 to 3 inclusive and¦ ¦
                +-------------------------------------------+-----------¦
                ¦21 ¦¦¦826.96 ¦
                +-------------------------------------------+-----------¦
                ¦Accounts Receivable County Treasurer ¦ ¦
                +-------------------------------------------+-----------¦
                ¦Tax Collections (General Fund) ¦ ¦
                +-------------------------------------------+-----------¦
                ¦Accounts Receivable-Ferndale ¦ ¦
                +-------------------------------------------+-----------¦
                ¦Accounts Receivable-Royal Oak ¦ ¦
                +-------------------------------------------+-----------¦
                ¦Accounts Receivable-Pleasant Ridge ¦ ¦
                +-------------------------------------------+-----------¦
                ¦Physical Assets ¦¦¦4,443.68 ¦
                +-----------------------------------------+++-----------¦
                ¦“Total Assets ¦¦¦$421,906.37¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦“Liabilities ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------¦
                ¦“Dog License Account ¦$ 1,115.15 ¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------------------+----------¦
                ¦School Taxes Collected by Township ¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------------------+----------¦
                ¦State and County Taxes ¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------------------+----------¦
                ¦“Advances by County ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦Treasurer ¦$ 20,000.00¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦(All types of taxes)¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦Temporary Loans ¦140,000.00 ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦“(Pledging all types of taxes ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦and used in all different funds)¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦“Total ¦ ¦$160,000.00¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦“Cash Expenditures ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦over Cash Receipts ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦Special Assessment ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦Districts ¦33,552.87 ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦“Cash Expenditures ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦over Cash receipts ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦Fire and Road ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦District Funds ¦94,312.58 ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦“Total ¦ ¦127,865.45 ¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------------------+----------¦
                ¦“Net Liability General Fund Only ¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------------------+----------¦
                ¦“Total Liabilities ¦ ¦ ¦$57,563.42¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦“Total Assets ¦ ¦$421,906.37¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦“Total Liabilities ¦57,563.42 ¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦“Net ¦ ¦$364,342.95¦ ¦
                +--------------------+-----------+-----------+----------¦
                ¦“17.72856% of Net ¦$64,592.75 ¦ ¦ ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------+
                

‘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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Banish v. City of Hamtramck, Docket No. 2658
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • March 18, 1968
    ...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 5 See discussion in Funkho......
  • Commissioner of Ins. v. Arcilio, Docket No. 187813
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • January 10, 1997
    ...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 res because ......
  • Fodale v. Waste Mgt. of Mich., Docket No. 253446.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • May 2, 2006
    ...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.) (defining "person......
  • Hazel Park Nonpartisan Taxpayers Ass'n v. Royal Oak Tp. , No. 1.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 17, 1947
    ...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 Royal Oak, def......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Banish v. City of Hamtramck, Docket No. 2658
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • March 18, 1968
    ...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 5 See discussion in Funkho......
  • Commissioner of Ins. v. Arcilio, Docket No. 187813
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • January 10, 1997
    ...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 res bec......
  • Fodale v. Waste Mgt. of Mich., Docket No. 253446.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • May 2, 2006
    ...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.) (defining &q......
  • Hazel Park Nonpartisan Taxpayers Ass'n v. Royal Oak Tp. , No. 1.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 17, 1947
    ...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 Royal Oak, def......
  • 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