Whitman v. Royal Oak Tp., No. 95.

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtEDWARD M. SHARPE
Citation269 Mich. 146,256 N.W. 835
Decision Date23 October 1934
Docket NumberNo. 95.
PartiesWHITMAN et al. v. ROYAL OAK TP. et al.

269 Mich. 146
256 N.W. 835

WHITMAN et al.
v.
ROYAL OAK TP.
et al.

No. 95.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 23, 1934.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Oakland County, in Chancery; Glenn C. Gillespie, Judge.

Suit by Charles F. Whitman and others against the Township of Royal Oak, a municipal corporation of Oakland County, Michigan, the Detroit Fidelity & Surety Company, and others, in which the second-named defendant filed a cross-bill. From an adverse decree, the second-named defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Friedman, Meyers & Keys, of Detroit (Sylvan Rapaport, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

Bulkley, Ledyard, Dickinson & Wright, of Detroit (Robert E. McKean and Robert W. Conder, both of Detroit, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.


Sherman McDonald, of Royal Oak (Arthur E. Moore, of Royal Oak, of counsel), for Royal Oak Tp. and Hazen Race, treasurer of Royal Oak Tp.

EDWARD M. SHARPE, Justice.

In the month of October, 1926, the township of Royal Oak issued and sold its bonds for the purpose of paying for certain sewer and water improvements made in platted lands within the township as authorized by Act No. 116, P. A. 1923, as amended by Act No. 263, P. A. 1925. Section 1 of the act reads as follows: ‘In any township where there are platted lands, the plats of which have been duly approved and recorded, lying outside of the boundaries of incorporated villages, the township board shall have authority to make improvements by grading, curbing, graveling or cinderizing streets, laying storm sewers to care for surface waters in such streets and making extensions of water mains to provide water for fire protection and domestic uses in any such platted lands, and in unplatted lands contiguous thereto; to levy and collect special assessments to pay the cost thereof and to issue bonds in anticipation of the collection of said special assessments, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter provided.’

Act No. 116, P. A. 1923, was further amended by Act No. 58, P. A. 1927, section 3 of which reads in part as follows: ‘If any such special assessment fund is insufficient to pay such bonds and interest thereon when due, the township board shall advance the amount necessary to pay such bonds, and shall be reimbursed from such assessments when collected, or by re-assessment of the deficiency if necessary.’

The above act was still further amended by Act No. 24, P. A. 1934, Extra Session, providing that the township board may (instead of shall) advance the amount of the bonds from its general funds. The operation of this amendment is restricted to those bonds issued subsequent to April 21, 1927. This amendment became effective March 28, 1934.

Each of the bonds here in question was secured by a pledge of collections from a particular assessment roll and contains provisions of which the following is typical: ‘Know all men by these presents, that the township of Royal Oak, County of Oakland,

[256 N.W. 836]

State of Michigan, acknowledges itself to owe, and for value received promises to pay the bearer the sum of One Thousand Dollars lawful money of the United States on the 1st day of October, 1931, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually on the 1st day of April and the first day of October in each year on presentation and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Harbold v. City Of Reading.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 25 Noviembre 1946
    ...highest courts in other jurisdictions are in accord with the views expressed in the North Dakota case: Whitman v. Royal Oak Twp., 1934, 269 Mich. 146, 256 N.W. 835; City of Highland Park v. Dearborn Twp., 1938, 285 Mich. 440, 280 N.W. 820. (This latter case held that the holders of special ......
  • Royal Oak Drain Dist., Oakland County, Mich. v. Keefe, No. 7280.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 14 Enero 1937
    ...which by appropriate proceedings may be enforced, Moore v. Harrison, 224 Mich. 512, 195 N.W. 306; Whitman v. Township of Royal Oak, 269 Mich. 146, 256 N.W. 835, and as hereinafter noted the decree below was entered while the 1927 Act was in In 1935, approximately six months after final decr......
  • Hazel Park Nonpartisan Taxpayers Ass'n v. Royal Oak Tp. , No. 1.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 17 Abril 1947
    ...additional factual background underlying the questions raised on the instant appeal may be found in Whitman v. Township of Royal Oak, 269 Mich. 146, 256 N.W. 835;Township of Royal Oak v. City of Pleasant Ridge, 295 Mich. 284, 294 N.W. 682;Township of Royal Oak v. City of Pleasant Ridge, 307......
  • Royal Oak Tp. v. City of Pleasant Ridge, No. 109.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 13 Noviembre 1940
    ...payment of these bonds. This resulted in litigation which was decided by this court in Whitman v. Township of Royal Oak, October, 1934, 269 Mich. 146, 256 N.W. 835, 836. This was a bill filed by bondholders against the township and others to compel payments due on the identical bonds now be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Harbold v. City Of Reading.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 25 Noviembre 1946
    ...highest courts in other jurisdictions are in accord with the views expressed in the North Dakota case: Whitman v. Royal Oak Twp., 1934, 269 Mich. 146, 256 N.W. 835; City of Highland Park v. Dearborn Twp., 1938, 285 Mich. 440, 280 N.W. 820. (This latter case held that the holders of special ......
  • Royal Oak Drain Dist., Oakland County, Mich. v. Keefe, No. 7280.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 14 Enero 1937
    ...which by appropriate proceedings may be enforced, Moore v. Harrison, 224 Mich. 512, 195 N.W. 306; Whitman v. Township of Royal Oak, 269 Mich. 146, 256 N.W. 835, and as hereinafter noted the decree below was entered while the 1927 Act was in In 1935, approximately six months after final decr......
  • Hazel Park Nonpartisan Taxpayers Ass'n v. Royal Oak Tp. , No. 1.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 17 Abril 1947
    ...additional factual background underlying the questions raised on the instant appeal may be found in Whitman v. Township of Royal Oak, 269 Mich. 146, 256 N.W. 835;Township of Royal Oak v. City of Pleasant Ridge, 295 Mich. 284, 294 N.W. 682;Township of Royal Oak v. City of Pleasant Ridge, 307......
  • Royal Oak Tp. v. City of Pleasant Ridge, No. 109.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 13 Noviembre 1940
    ...payment of these bonds. This resulted in litigation which was decided by this court in Whitman v. Township of Royal Oak, October, 1934, 269 Mich. 146, 256 N.W. 835, 836. This was a bill filed by bondholders against the township and others to compel payments due on the identical bonds now be......
  • 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