Warren Tp. v. Raymond
| Decision Date | 19 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 27.,27. |
| Citation | 291 Mich. 426,289 N.W. 201 |
| Parties | WARREN TP. v. RAYMOND. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by the Township of Warren against William Raymond to enjoin the defendant from continuing to operate a junk yard and automobile wrecking plant without obtaining a proper license. From an adverse decree, the defendant appeals.
Reversed and bill dismissed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Macomb County, in Chancery; James E. spier, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Irving W. Goldsmith, of Detroit (Harry Holden MacCord, of Detroit, of counsel), for defendants and appellants.
Charles A. Retzlaff, of East Detroit, for plaintiff and appellee.
Prior to April 1936, William Raymond established in its present location in Warren township, Macomb county, his business as a dealer in used automobile parts. A township ordinance which became effective March 6, 1937 provided that a license required to conduct a business of this nature would only be issued or reissued to an applicant upon the annual written consent of a majority of the property owners surrounding the premises to be used within a 500 foot radius; and the ordinance further provided a fine and/or imprisonment for its violation. It contains no provision for its enforcement by injunction.
The township filed a bill of complaint in the circuit court of Macomb county, in chancery, alleging the defendant was conducting his business without having obtained a license and with the apparent intent of not obtaining a license, all in violation of the ordinance. The relief sought was an injunction against defendant's continuing to operate his business. In his answer defendant admitted he was ‘operating a junk yard and automobile wrecking plant’, within the township. Admittedly he is doing so without having obtained a license. He testified he applied for a license and was ready and willing to pay the license fee. His application was denied apparently for the reason that he did not have the required written consent of surrounding property owners.
The primary issue is: Has an equity court power to enforce this ordinance by injunction? The general rule as established by authorities is that a court of equity has not the power to restrain violation of a criminal statute or ordinance; but where the facts form a basis for equitable relief, the jurisdiction of the court is not destroyed by the fact that a criminal act will be restrained. Village of St. Johns v. McFarlan, 33 Mich. 72, 20 Am.Rep. 671;Conway v. Gampel, 235 Mich. 511, 209 N.W. 562, and Glover v. Malloska, 238 Mich. 216, 213 N.W. 107, 52 A.L.R. 77. See also 32 C.J. pp. 275-9. As was said in Grand Rapids Board of Health v. Vink, 184 Mich. 688, 151 N.W. 672, 675, where the headnotes were cited from In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 15 S.Ct. 900, 39 L.Ed. 1092.
‘A court of equity has power to interfere by injunction in cases of public nuisance.
‘The jurisdiction of a court of equity to enjoin interferences with property rights is not destroyed by the fact that they are accompanied by or are violations of the criminal law.’
The business of wrecking automobiles and of salvaging of parts is not a public or private nuisance per se. Perry Mount Park Cemetery Ass'n v. Netzel, 274 Mich. 97, 264 N.W. 303;Netzel v. Township Board of Waterford Township, 267 Mich. 220, 255 N.W. 314. In this case the pleadings do not allege a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens for Pre-Trial Justice v. Goldfarb
...is such an allegation, it does not defeat equity's jurisdiction that the conduct enjoined is criminal. See Twp. of Warren v. Raymond, 291 Mich. 426, 428, 289 N.W. 201 (1939), United-Detroit Theatres Corp. v. Colonial Theatrical Enterprise, Inc., 280 Mich. 425, 431, 273 N.W 756 (1937), Seife......
-
People ex rel. Winkle v. Bannan, 58
...Justice. In Cole v. City of Battle Creek, 298 Mich. 98, 104, 298 N.W. 466, 468, appears the following: 'In Township of Warren v. Raymond, 291 Mich. 426, 289 N.W. 201, 203, we said: "This Court has repeatedly held that constitutional questions will not be passed upon where other questions ar......
-
People v. Reichenbach
...Court does not answer constitutional questions where other questions are raised that will dispose of the case. Warren Twp. v. Raymond, 291 Mich. 426, 429, 289 N.W. 201 (1939). The majority provides that under People v. Studaker, 387 Mich. 698, 199 N.W.2d 177 (1972), "this Court unanimously ......
-
Great American Ins. Co. v. Queen
...v. DAIIE, supra, 404 Mich. 509, 274 N.W.2d 373.5 Workman v. DAIIE, supra, 404 Mich. 510, 274 N.W.2d 373.6 See also Warren Twp. v. Raymond, 291 Mich. 426, 289 N.W. 201 (1939); Wayne Circuit Judges v. Wayne County, 15 Mich.App. 713, 167 N.W.2d 337 (1969), aff'd (On Rehearing ) 386 Mich. 1, 19......