Thomson v. City of Dearborn, 32
| Decision Date | 28 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 32,32 |
| Citation | 81 N.W.2d 423,348 Mich. 23 |
| Parties | James THOMSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The CITY OF DEARBORN, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
James Thomson, in pro. per.
Dale H. Fillmore, Corp. Counsel, Dearborn, for defendant-appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
It appears from the record in this case that the charter of the City of Dearborn makes provision in chapter 21 thereof for a retirement system, or pension plan, for employees in the police and fire departments of the city. Chapter 22 makes like provision for the benefit of other municipal employees. The city council of the city, at a session held on April 11, 1956, adopted a resolution providing for the submission of an amendment to the charter by adding thereto chapter 23 for the purpose of establishing a pension plan for new employees in the police and fire departments other than as set forth in chapter 21. The resolution provided for submitting the matter as proposition 'F' at a special election to be held in the city on June 11, 1956. It is claimed on behalf of defendant that the purpose of the amendment was to lead to ultimate uniformity in the payment of pensions to retired employees of the city.
Under date of May 28, 1956, plaintiff filed his bill of complaint seeking injunctive relief against the submission of proposition 'F' on the ground that the form of the question to be placed on the voting machines used in the city, pursuant to action of the city council, was insufficient in that it failed to inform the voters of the question to be voted on and was, in fact, misleading. The bill of complaint further questioned the desirability of the amendment from the standpoint of the public welfare. On the filing of the pleading an order issued, returnable June 8th following, requiring the defendant to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue in accordance with the prayer of the bill. Defendant filed its answer to the order, moving therein that the bill be dismissed. Such motion was granted and the trial court, by opinion filed on June 15, 1956, denied plaintiff's motion for injunction and dismissed the case.
In the menatime, and under date of June 8, 1956, plaintiff filed an amended bill of complaint, incorporating therein the provisions of the first bill and alleging further that the city council on the 17th of May, 24 days prior to the date of the special election, amended proposition 'F' by resolution, asserting that the change violated applicable provisions of section 21 of the City Home Rule Act. 1 Defendant filed answer to plaintiff's amended pleading. A subsequent motion for a re-hearing was made by plaintiff, and denied. The election was held as scheduled on June 11, 1956, and the proposed amendment in question was adopted. Plaintiff has appealed from the order of dismissal, asking in his brief that this Court set aside the election on the proposed amendment and decree the invalidity thereof.
The section of the Home Rule Act above cited requires that the purpose of a proposed charter amendment shall be designated on the ballots in a true and impartial statement, not exceeding 100 words in length. In the instant case the statement as proposed by resolution of the council read as follows:
'Are you in favor of changing the pension plan for new employees in the police and fire departments in the city by providing that all such new employees shall be members of a retirement system similar to the plan for the City of Dearborn employees' retirement system set forth in Chapter 22 of the charter, by amending the charter, to provided therefor?'
The statute provides that proposed charter amendments shall be published in full together with existing provisions that would be altered or abrogated thereby if adopted. On behalf of defendant it is claimed that such publication was duly had, and plaintiff does not claim otherwise. Counsel for defendant further insist that the statement of the question was not misleading, and was in such form as to direct the attention of the voters to the nature and purpose of the proposal. The claim is well-founded.
It may not be said that the proposal sought to amend chapter 21 of the charter as well as to add a new chapter thereto. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Brodsky, 11
... ... 618, 68 A.L.R. 105; Abel v. Wayne County Sheriff, 320 Mich. 616, 621, 32 N.W.2d 4, and prior decisions there cited; School District No. 1, etc. 8 Mich. 21] v. School District of City of Lansing, 331 Mich. 523, 50 N.W.2d 150. In City of Detroit v. Wayne ... ...
-
Benjamin v. City of Huntington Woods
...wrong statute when no statute is required to be cited. North Mainland Co. v. Willson, 245 Mich. 537, 222 N.W. 705; Thomson v. City of Dearborn, 348 Mich. 23, 81 N.W.2d 423. The second issue requires consideration of a recent amendment to the statute pertaining to incorporation of cities and......