388 Mich. 626 | Mich. | 1972
Lead Opinion
On Applications for Rehearing.
On order of the Court, the applications of the Wayne County Stadium Authority and the County of Wayne for rehearing and purposes of clarification are considered and the same are hereby denied. The opinion heretofore rendered is reaffirmed without change. However, the following is added thereto for the purpose of clarification. Where the county is authorized under appropriate statute to be a "borrower” (unlike present Act 31) then the computation of the county’s indebtedness as a borrower would at any time equal the outstanding principal plus accrued payable interest.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). I would deny the application without further comment. It is patently contradictory to "reaffirm without change,” and then change the opinion by adding four lines "for clarification.” It was my view that the original opinion badly muddied the waters of municipal finance in Michigan. I tried in vain to dissuade the Bench from its course. Having made a mistake, and being unwilling to undo it, we ought at least have the consistency to stick by it.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). I would deny these applications, without expatiation.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). When we decided this case we held that the Detroit Stadium Bonds were not revenue bonds within the definitions of MCLA 123.951 et seq.; MSA 5.301(1) et seq., and MCLA 141.101 et seq.; MSA 5.2731 et seq.
I signed the majority opinion because I was (and am) persuaded that this is the correct holding on this, the only point necessary to decision of the case.
The profession, should be reminded that the office of obiter dicta is usually to illustrate the holding of the case and not to decide the other points discussed.
From the petitions for rehearing and clarification in this case it is apparent that such obiter dicta has confused, rather than assisted the profession, and for this reason I favor granting rehearing or the issuance of a limited opinion to eliminate the confusion.
