Skinner v. Twp. Bd. for Argentine Tp.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 256. |
| Parties | SKINNER v. TOWNSHIP BOARD FOR ARGENTINE TP., GENESEE COUNTY. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Genesee County; Fred W. Brennan, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by Frank W. Skinner against the Township Board for the Township of Argentine, Genesee County, to compel respondents to grant permit to conduct dance and soft drink hall. Respondents were ordered to grant permit, and they bring certiorari. Reversed, with directions.
The relator, Frank W. Skinner, on two occasions applied to the township board of Argentine township, Genesee county, for a permit to conduct a dance and soft drink hall, as provided by Act No. 53, P. A. 1921.
The first application was presented March 24, 1925, and permit denied. He then applied to the Genesee circuit court for a mandamus to compel the township board to grant him such permit. Upon hearing, the matter was disposed of adversely to relator May 9, 1925, and later a writ of certiorari to review the proceeding was denied by this court.
The second application, identical with the first, was presented to the township board July 24th following, four months after the first. It was filed, as relator claims, for the reason that the first one did not receive favorable action because three members of the township board believed they had the right to deny it, if they were opposed to dance halls generally, and that they did not understand it was essential that there be statutory objections to the relator which would disqualify him. He therefore expected, when the matter came before the board again, that these members, after learning their position was wrong, would vote in favor of granting him the permit he sought. But they did not, and on August 7, 1925, at an adjourned meeting of the board, its members refused to take any action at all on the ground that the denial of relator's former petition, based on their finding that he ‘would conduct said place in a manner as to be a menace to and inimical to the public morals' etc., deprived the board of jurisdiction to act, unless its former resolution was rescinded. Assuming this position, a motion to grant the permit was declared out of order, and the board adjourned without further action.
Relator again commenced mandamus proceedings against the board to compel granting of the permit. Issue was framed, and the case was tried before Hon. Fred W. Brennan without a jury. Many witnesses were sworn on the question of relator's reputation and fitness. At its close the court granted the prayer of relator, and ordered respondent board to forthwith convene and grant him a permit for one year. In his opinion Judge Brennan said:
We review here on certiorari.
Argued before the Entire Bench.William R. Roberts, Pros. Atty., of Flint, and Sylvester Pheney, of Holly, for petitioner.
George W. Cook, of Flint, for relator.
SNOW, J. (after stating the facts as above).
Act No. 97, P. A. 1919, providing for the issuing of permits by township boards for conducting dance halls, etc., was declared by this court to be unconstitutional, because it provided no method for making application, contained no qualifications for the applicant, provided no standard of fitness, made no provision as to the character of the structure to be used, and conferred ‘upon the township board the arbitrary power to grant or refuse a license, according to its whim or caprice.’ See Devereaux v. Township Board, 211 Mich. 38, 177 N. W. 967.
At the following session of the Legislature the statute here involved (Act No. 53 P. A. 1921) was enacted. By this act it was attempted to remedy the objectionable features of the former one, and it is provided that:
‘No person shall be granted a permit under the provisions of this act who is under twenty-one years of age and who has not resided within this state for a period of at least one year immediately prior to the application for such permit; nor shall any such permit to granted to any person who has been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, nor to any person whose general reputation in any community in which he has resided during the five years next preceding such application is that of a gambler, bootlegger, cheat or promoter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gregory Marina, Inc. v. City of Detroit
...did not appeal the Gray judgment, and that we should apply the doctrine of res judicata as defined in Skinner v. Argentine Township Board, 238 Mich. 533, pp. 537, 538, 213 N.W. 680, p. 682, where we 'The doctrine of Res judicata is defined to be 'that an existing final judgment or decree re......
-
Iowa Nat. Bank v. Stewart
...147 Iowa, 498, 123 N. W. 746, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 782;In re Sioux City Stockyards Co., 149 Iowa, 5, 127 N. W. 1102;Skinner v. Township Board, 238 Mich. 533, 213 N. W. 680. [5] II. As to taxes assessed upon competing capital held by domestic corporations. Plaintiffs are of two classes: (1) Stat......
-
Iowa Nat. Bank v. Stewart
... ... 746; In re ... Assessment Stock Yards [214 Iowa 1238] Co., 149 Iowa 5; ... Skinner v. Township Board (Mich.) 238 Mich. 533, 213 ... N.W. 680, 681 ... II. As ... ...
-
Schneyder v. Cadillac Motor Car Co.
...the employer to pay compensation.’ City of Grand Rapids v. Crocker, supra. On the question of res judicata, Skinner v. Argentine Township Board, 238 Mich. 533, 537, 213 N.W. 680, 682, states: ‘The doctrine of res judicata is defined to be ‘that an existing final judgment or decree rendered ......