Township of Grant v. Township of Reno

• Decision Date: 16 July 1897
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: TOWNSHIP OF GRANT v. TOWNSHIP OF RENO.

72 N.W. 18

114 Mich. 41

TOWNSHIP OF GRANT v. TOWNSHIP OF RENO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 16, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Iosco county, in chancery; William H Simpson, Judge.

Bill by the township of Grant against the township of Reno for contribution to the payment of a judgment against the complainant township. From a decree in favor of complainant defendant appeals. Reversed.

O. E. M'Cutcheon, for appellant.

Barbour & Rexford, for appellee.

HOOKER J.

The bill filed in this cause was held sufficient in 65 N.W. 376 on demurrer. The cause has since been heard on pleadings and proofs, and is again before us upon appeal by the defendant from a decree in favor of the complainant. The nature of the complainant's claim will be understood by a perusal of the statement of facts and opinion cited, and it is unnecessary to repeat in detail the facts alleged. In brief a statement of complainant's claim may be said to be that in 1869, the township of Grant, as then constituted, issued some plank-road aid bonds, which, though void under the law, as interpreted by this court, were valid in the hands of innocent holders for value, under the rule recognized by the federal courts; that subsequently the township of Reno was organized from territory detached from the township of Grant, and that, although the township boards met, and it was agreed that Reno should pay her proportion of these bonds, it neglected and refused to reimburse Grant for the payment of such proportion, after judgment rendered against Grant. The bonds upon which the judgment against the township of Grant, to which Reno is asked to contribute, was based, are admitted to have been void in the hands of the payee. To entitle Haugan to a judgment against the township of Grant, it was necessary that he should show that he or some former owner of the bonds was a purchaser in good faith before maturity, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of the invalidity of the bonds, as the law imposes the burden of such showing upon the plaintiff where the defendant shows that the bond or note was illegal or void in the hands of the payee. Paton v. Coit, 5 Mich. 505; Bottomley v. Goldsmith, 36 Mich. 27; Conley v. Winsor, 41 Mich. 253, 2 N.W. 31; Mace v. Kennedy, 68 Mich. 389, 36 N.W. 187; Bank v. Seymour, 64 Mich. 59, 31 N.W. 140; Lytle v. Lansing, 147 U.S. 59, 13 S.Ct. 254. To view preceding link please click here Whether this was shown in the case against Grant, we need not inquire, but it must be shown in this case, unless it can be said that the judgment against Grant is conclusive of the question, against Reno. It is contended that such is the case, and the former opinion in this cause is relied...