*1 parol evidence, and we have also our concluded from examination of the record that the trial court did not err in clearly that an oral finding agreement July 1962, superseded all prior preliminary negotiations and hence became the final and binding contract of the parties the construction of the Abbey Convalescent and Home. Nursing
noteWe that the trial court a lien in the imposed of $23,585 amount which was based the itemiza- upon tion of costs found in Exhibit “early IV. Since the performance” claim not clearly established was disregarded by the trial we ex- court, hereby clude item of 47 Exhibit IV and order the amount of the lien reduced by $2,500 to read $21,085.
Costs to appellees.
All concurred. DETROIT BOARD OF STREET RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS OF WAYNE COUNTY Court County City Transportation 1. Taxation — Taxes —Home Rule — Utility. Transportation by PA 1965, ligated pay county utilities owned 116). (CL 1948, home rule 117.4f as amended cities are not ob- [6] [10] [11] [8] [1, [13] [7] [2] [3] [12] 51 Am 50 Am 50 Am 51 Am 50 Am 51 Am 50 Am 50 Am 50 Am 9] 51 Am Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, References Statutes Taxation Statutes Taxation Statutes Taxation Statutes Statutes Statutes § Jur, Taxation §§ §§ §§ §§ 223. 563. for Points 159 et 180 et 384 183-185, et § 181. 414. 563. seq. seq. seq. 190. in Headnotes By. Comm. v. Change Property in Status. Tax — Taxation — property is to be providing that removed Statute subject on tax rolls if it was taxation change of sueh day, regardless in the taxable status *2 changes day, apply does not to property that since by legislation brought new property about status of 211.29). (MCLA § Construction—Legislative Intent. 3. Statutes — attempt construing legislation to determine what should Courts legislative intent was. County Transportation Utility — — — 4. Taxation Taxes Ex- emption — Refund. 1965, July 2, provided whieh Statute which beeame effective transportation by utilities owned home rule cities that no held, longer obligated pay county were taxes intended municipal require repay transportation counties utilities portion of the taxes before the statute beeame (CL 1965, 1948, by 117.4f PA effective as amended No § 116). Utility Exemp- Transportation — — — Taxation Taxes — — Effective tion Statute Date. July 2, 1965, provided effective which Statute which beeame on transportation by home rule that utilities owned eities were held, longer obligated pay property no taxes transportation sueh from taxes whieh excuse utilities were though payable after the statute beeame effective even taxes (CL were assessed before the statute became effective 116). by 117.4f as amended § County Taxes. and Phrases —Local Taxes — Taxation —Words requiring “local as used trans- The term taxes” must portation home rule cities state utilities owned if property privately owned does not inelude taxes and local (MCLA 117.4f). taxes § Statutes—Object—Title of Statute. 7. Constitutional Law — object, whieh must be may more one embrace than No statute 24). (Const expressed in art its title Statutes—Object—Title of Statute. Law — 8. Constitutional incorporation of provide for title whieh their Statutes may as their government have of local units and other cities functioning of sueh units germane object anything to the 24). art (Const 1964, local government 18 Statute—Object—Statutory 9. Taxation —Constitutional Law — Transportation Utility Property Title —Home Rule Cities — — Tax. acquisition by Provision for the public home rule cities of trans- portation anything acquisition utilities and related to and own- n ership, provision regarding taxability .of such a transportation utility’s property may properly be included in a provides statute whieh incorporation' its title of cities government (Const and other units local art 24; MOLA seq.). 117.1 et Refund—Judgment—In- Payment Under Protest — 10. Taxation — terest. taxpayer
A is entitled to interest from the date of all protest under where the Court of Appeals orders a refund of such taxes.
Dissenting Beer, *3 — n —(cid:127) Object — — 11. Constitutional Law Statutes Title Taxa- — Exemption. tion provided The Constitutions have years more than 100 for no law object shall embrace more than one which shall be expressed title; governmental right therefore legislated tax should never be under an inappropriate nor be buried a (Const statute not related to taxation 4, 24; art seq.). MCLA et 117.1 Appeal Wayne, John B. Swainson, J. Sub January mitted Division 1 10, 1968, at Detroit. (Docket 3,480.) August No. Decided 26, 1969. Re- hearing denied November
Complaint by Railway the Board of Street Com- City against missioners of County of Detroit Wayne and Louis H. Funk, Treasurer County property paid to recover certain taxes under protest. Judgment plaintiff. ap- for Defendant peals. Attorney The General of the State Michi- Wayñe 61? OoMm. party appeal. gan a on defendant intervened Judgment and affirmed. modified plaintiff. Zechman,
Manuel Prosecuting Attorney Cahalan, William L. Koney,
Aloysius Suchy F. J. and William Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for defendant. Kelley, Attorney General, J. Robert A.
Frank Derengoski, D. and William Dex- General, Solicitor Attorneys Roesck, R. Assistant ter and Rickard Gen- for intervenor defendant. eral,- J.,* T. P. G. and Levin Kavanagh, Before: JJ.
Beer,** plaintiff Department Rail- Levin, of Street years, ways (DSR) over both local has, property city on its situated taxes outside Detroit’s taxes with the 1909 limits in accordance act, Amendment to the home rule which authorized city purchase transportation rule util- a home ity,1 provided: and which acquired, transportation utility so “When taxes thereon as if state shall portion
*4 privately local owned, also property lying limits.” CL such outside (Stat 5.2079). Ann 1949Rev 1948, 117.4f Michigan an ad valorem has not levied The State tax since Supp signed § 4,.and [*] [1] [**] PA work Thomas Giles Circuit to sit 5.2071 1909, CLS assigned judge, 1961, No et the Court seq.]). [279] has been § sitting Kavanagh, 600.225, (MOLA completed” on the Court Appeals as amended. Justice 117.1 from pursuant et of the seq. February 27, “until 1969, Appeals [Stat to Const Supreme Ann by assignment. 1963, art Court, 1969 Cum as- 6, 18 614 618 op the Court legislature “and In eliminated words 1965the provision.2 According- county” statutory from this ly, July date of this 2, 1965, after the effective longer obligated pay DSR was amendment, the no county being and, levied, no State tax only obligated pay local units of taxes levied government outside on the located DSR’s limits. Detroit’s is entitled to refund
The claims it DSR county Wayne of Wayne county January
(1) in taxes, (before February, July 2, 1965, effective amending act), applicable much to so date of the county’s year July 2, after fiscal as remained ;3 1965 and county
(2) protest under taxes, January February, county DSR not The that the entitled contends of 1964 taxes and that DSR was refund they the 1965 taxes as well because 31,1964, of December date before were assessed as though amendment, date of the even the effective payable a date, did not until De- 1965taxes become after the effective date the amend- 1,1965, cember the amendment The contends that ment. exemption cannot from assessment and creates date. affect an assessment made before the effective county, Thus, since the amendment contends the only after the made effective affects assessments amendment affected first assessment date, early cember until 5.2079]). December 1965, even ending terms 11/12 though November as “1964 taxes” the taxes (MCLA fiscal and which were many eounty year (perhaps 117.4Í fiscal which did not become [Stat payable without county beginning year is in most) Ann 1969 Cum taxpayers paid assessed as penalty December payable of De- Supp *5 619 op Opinion the Court as of December made assessment was tlie and, accordingly, from which the DSR first taxes the exempt taxes.4 were became following statutory county argues the that change supports provision that a contention property but after assessment taxable status payable does not becomes the assessment before liability payment: make affect according to the facts be reviewed “The roll shall day. review] [of existing The board on the tax any property subject not roll to the shall not add day shall it remove from the the tax nor taxation day subject any property said to taxation on in roll any change regardless status the taxable day.” § 211.29 property MCLA since such such 7.29). (Stat Ann 1960 Rev much into reads too In our by provision just quoted. provision added This was 1941 amendment 234. Before this was Supreme Michigan had ruled that Court enacted, the properly roll from the stricken assessment there was by dispositive. In Mackinac parties eases cited None of the Township Transportation Mackinaw Mich Co. v. exemption legislation providing a new decide that Court did not the could not text assessments, in the factual con past but rather that affect operate Court would law there before the which the new exemption permit legislature did not intend to year in new law which the general property taxes for tax exemption year which could tax for passed; that the first was be obtained was rather year passage of the new law. after the tax permitted owners of steam vessels Court before the tax The law there general property tax. The cut-off specific in lieu of the to date reasoned 1. The Court specific tax was December payment of the day as the cut-off legislature meant to establish general property year for which the preceding tax December tax 1 of the sought otherwise it would the December exemption rather than tax known until the lien not be year because itself steamship particular 1) whether (which December was also date predica- The “troublesome property tax. subject general would ment” case. presented tins not the Court is (p 422) visualized option, did it taxes, it had no given a choice The DSR was exemption avail itself action to affirmative not have to take Act. Home Hule to the amendment from taxation effected op the Court held at the time assessment one who exempt the final thereafter,
was not before tax session of the board of review authorized to review organization assessment, transferred that which exemption. enjoyed Township Grosse *6 Ile v. 451. The 1941 Saunders change applica designed the amendment law change kind a Henceforth, ble that of situation. after owner the assessment date the status the [e.g., exempt nonexempt versa) from or vice or property {e.g., enlargement, the nature the im provement destruction) would not its tax- affect ability or ad valorem value.
The 1941 amendment need be not read, however, declaring legislative purpose applicable as to all legislation changing taxability future per- the property. legisla- sons or In our the 1941 changes brought tion does not concern in status legislation. legislature about new did legislatures, not mean tie the hands of future nor determining legislature’s could it. enacting particular In the intent in law, we are not encumbered argued an absolute rule of construction such as that county. for the legislature
Our task tois determine what the legislature intended. Did the 1965 intend that the county repay paid the DSR for taxes in 1965 1965 amendment before the Did was enacted? it despite passage the intend that DSR would, the obliged pay the amendment, be taxes which did payable not until become after the effective date of exemption amendment and that the benefit would be deferred until the time for 1966taxes? legislature
We have concluded that did require repay municipal not intend to counties to op the Court portion transportation taxes utilities effective, but it did amendment became before liability to though taxes to relieve them intend payable even assess- thereafter otherwise payable preceded the taxes thereafter ment date date of the amendment. effective only conclusion because at this We arrive appears to be of the 1965 amendment construction like- construction and the one most more sensible purpose, legislature’s ly but in accord with the literally, pro- act read as amended because, also “payable” only are taxes thereafter vides that levied) (no longer Thus, taxes. local State effect, taxes no amendment took after the “paid.” longer to be were statutory July 2, 1965, effective As amended provision read: “state taxes shall be thereon any por privately owned, if also local taxes on *7 city property lying limi tion such outside Accordingly, supplied.) (Emphasis effective ts.”5 property July within DSR, to located as required any “pay” city not to limits, Detroit’s thing. was paid” are all “local that “shall be Thereafter, lying portion property outside of such taxes on year 1965 limits.” Since taxes year (county 1, 1965—November fiscal December 1966) payable 1,1965, until December did not become July paid 2, 1965, there on and, thus, had not been pay obligation 1964 to taxes was no further them. year (county 1964—November December fiscal 1965) already when the been had, however, exemption adopted. In short, was amendment anis 1965amendment effected from taxation 5.2079]). (MCLA 117.4f [Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp Mich Cotjkt op the exemp- exemption payment as well as from future tion from future assessment. contention that the term “local
The intervenor’s rejected. county Clearly taxes” includes taxes legislature, purpose, distinguished at least this county State, between word and local taxes. While purposes may “local” for some include city, township, village, etc., well as a in as this case “county” apparent it is that the word the word meanings. legisla- “local” have different When the “county,” ture it meant ex- eliminated the word empt municipal transportation utilities property taxes as to located both city.6 parent within and without the limits of the alternatively The DSB. contends that this stat- utory provision, imposing liability pay public transportation acquired utilities home rule one-object-expressed-in- Michigan’s cities, violates provision (Const 1963, the-title constitutional art 24)7 and, reason, for that it is entitled to recover the taxes for 1964 as well might draftsmanship have been It better to have placed provision concerning taxability municipal transportation general in utilities (where might expect tax law one to find it) rather than in the home act. There how- is, rule requirement legisla- no ever, constitutional that the tidy job legislating. perfectly do a It is ture free pieces legislation separate enact bits existing tack them on to statutes even acts was not State was taxes sinee, expressed in ilarly analyzed [7] “No law A similar contention on its real for a In that ease the shall embrace purposes and resolved ageney levying and title.” Const personal of that involving the the Detroit board of education ad valorem Supreme more than one a “State tax.” Hertzog .1963, aet, the Detroit board of education art Court declared that situated words “State City object, in Detroit taxes” which shall be *8 city of the DSR Detroit, sim 623 Wayne County v. op the Court might persons though that the bits and think some general covering particular pieces belong in a requirement is satis- The constitutional the matter. pieces are embraced so enacted if the hits and fied amendatory object expressed in title of the in the being amended. act and the act providing for act8 and other acts
The home rule incorporation of and other units of local cities the government interpreted having as their
have been
functioning.9
anything germane
object
their
to
changes
city organiza
great
in our
“Most of the
more
in under laws which did no
have come
tions
than to
purpose
incor
indicate
their titles a
corporate
porate,
charter
reincorporate, or
revise the
Anything
municipality
of
dealt with.
permanent
in
meant to form a
element
which is
municipal arrangements
pertinent
incor
to the
Supervisors
poration.” Holden v. Board
of
of
County (1889), Mich
204.10
77
Osceola
8
complete
“Ail
of the home rule aet is as follows:
aet
title
incorporation
revising
provide for
cities and for
of
by PA
amending
PA
their charters.”
No
as amended
No 203 and
No 5.
following
subject
In
with in the
all the
eases the
matter dealt
objeet expressed
consideration was
aet under
held to be within the
Supervisors (1961),
in the title: Hall v. Calhoun
Board of
(annexation
eity by
territory
373 Mich
of
of one home rule
City
Judge
another);
317
alleged negligent
(1897),
Detroit v.
Circuit
112 Mich
of
(requirement
given
eity
notice
3 months
within
injury;
provide
aet was
“an
entitled:
act
a
Village
Detroit”)
Kingsford
;
Cudlip
charter
for the
v.
Bray
(1932),
144, 151,
(1927),
258 Mich
Stewart
v.
(annexation
310,
title
territory
village;
township
parallels
of the act under consideration in
eases
the last
cited
aet,
provide
incorporation
viz.-. “An
the home rule
aet
villages
revising
amending
of
1913,
and for
their charters.”
[PA
People
(con
95]);
(1879),
v. Hurst
11 Mich
ceding
including
eity
in
that “there is much awkwardness
within a
provisions affeeting judicial proceedings
having
in
charter
courts
general
jurisdiction
beyond
eity,”
Michigan
outside and
Su
preme
provisions
establishing
Court held valid
Detroit’s charter
regarding
court;
entitled,
the recorder’s
was
“An
act
act
People
city Detroit”);
(1887),
to revise
The In trial did not allow interest. our judge from the is entitled to interest the interest on payment and, accordingly, time of the amount be should computed refunded be date.12
On shall be to re- remand, judgment modified a refund to the of all ad valorem taxes quire DSR in the DSR January February, county Wayne to the of interest thereon at plus rate of annum from time of per payment. 5% shall refunded in to taxes Nothing regard (amendment (1901), Detroit Schmid v. aet entitled, provide “An of Detroit” aet to charter valid). require rather biennial than annual elections is People, Company ex rel. Connecticut Mutual Insurance Cf. Life 6, 17, 18, (1875), State Treasurer 31 Mich v. that a validly where Court held companies provision for life the taxation of insurance could in an be included act the title which stated that object bureau.” Court was “to establish an insurance The observed: certainly any just pertinent admissible to include “It was regulations respecting the course of action to be observed agency, engaged in towards those the business bureau as state insurance; equally any just admissible to include and it prescribing duty in appropriate provisions for due to the state companies.” from insurance the matter of taxation Ballog Knight ruling Supreme our Court’s recent v. Under Newspapers, (1969), Inc. 381 Mich the DSR would be entitled payment complaint of interest at least from the time its to receive precedent entitled to other the DSR would be was filed. Under protest. payment taxes under interest Helmsley from the time City Detroit 320 F2d 481. Since this v. days it time of suit was filed within little ehosen. relatively make difference will which dates Wayne County Dissenting by Beer, county Wayne January the DSR. to February,-1965. public question.
No costs, a T. J., Gr. P. concurred. Kavanagh, (dissenting). following J., concise Beer, *10 proceedings accepted of statement facts been and has parties appeal: all to this Railway “1. The Board of Street Commissioners (herein plaintiff) unincorporated called the is an city Michigan municipal board of the of Detroit, corporation provisions and under the of the Charter city (Chapter IV) of the of Detroit title has XIII, duty charged acquiring, been and is with the of own- ing operating system transportation lines, agency of the anas of and for and on behalf of and in the city conveying pas- name Detroit, said sengers within and without the limits of the Detroit. provisions ‘general property “2. Under (CL seq. [Stat
laws’ 1948 211.1 et Ann 1960 Rev seq.]) personal properties 7.1 et real of a municipal corporation exempt are assess- tax levy ment, and collection. provisions “3. Under the of the ‘home rule act’ (CL 5.2079]) [Stat 1948, 117.4f Ann 1949Rev personal properties municipally real and transportation system of a owned subject an an-
have been nual of an annual assessment and indebted- notwithstanding ‘tax’, ness in the form of a the ex- emption provisions ‘general property supra. laws’, years prior August plaintiff “4. For such annual ‘tax’ or to the indebtedness Wayne, immediate date, however such effect whereby No 116
Act words, of the Public Acts of county’ rule ‘and deleted from the ‘home were Am? 614 [Aug- Dissenting by Beer, act’, supra, law, was enacted into the effect of which eliminated the provisions ‘home rule act’ under which had been to pay the annual ‘tax’ or indebtedness to the as aforesaid. county Wayne,
“5. Prior to August 1965, to wit: on January February 11, 1965, plaintiff paid such annual ‘tax’ or indebtedness to the county Wayne for the fiscal period commencing on December 1, 1964 to November the sum of $150,579.84.
“6. After August 1965, to wit: on January 17, February 11, 1966, plaintiff paid such an- nual ‘tax’ or indebtedness to the county of Wayne for to fiscal period commencing December 1, 1965 November 1966 in of $146,120.92. the sum “7. Said ‘taxes’ or indebtedness so paid prior to 2, 1965 August under protest [sic] and that paid after such date was paid under pro- test.
“8. On February 15, 1966, plaintiff instituted this action in the circuit court for the county Wayne for the recovery of the sum of $49,516.57, in- plus terest, representing pro-rata sum of the said *11 or ‘taxes’ for indebtedness the from period August 2, 1965 to November 1965 and for the recovery of $146,120.92, plus interest, the period De- cember 1965 to November 30, 1966, which it had paid to the defendants.
“9. On March 7,1966, after service of of the copies complaint and summons had been had upon defend- ants, filed a motion they of an accelerated judgment of no cause for action on the grounds that the plain- tiff had failed to state a cause of action as a matter of law.
“10. On March 9, 1966, plaintiff filed an answer to the defendant’s Motion for accelerated judgment, which plaintiff denied the allegations of such motion.
“11. of Arguments counsel for the respective par- ties were submitted on briefs, after which the court, By. Wayne County Dissenting Opinion Beer, which, January an rendered 3,1967, the plaintiff recovery court concluded that entitled aforesaid, of the indebtedness the defendants periods accruing August for not after 1965, but awarding plaintiff interest thereon. January argument “12. additional On regarding had before the was whether court issue of plaintiff upon was entitled interest judgment to be entered its favor and thereafter form such issue was submitted in respective of briefs parties. judgment “13. March On was entered in in plaintiff $195,637.49, against of the favor the defendants interest, sum without costs ox- attorney fees. “14. March 16, On filed claim 1967, defendants together appeal removing with thereof, notice Appeals. cause to Court “15. March 29, On filed claim cross-appeal, together with notice thereof. proofs “16. Plaintiff and defendants have filed foregoing service entry and have appeal fees. plaintiff’s copy complaint “17. A and first complaint, together per- amended with all exhibits taining to this are cause hereto.” annexed Wayne The treasurer, following exception H. Louis had the Punk, to this concise statement: exception
“With the use the term ‘indebt- edness’ instead of ‘taxes’ and to the statement that plaintiff paid such annual ‘indebtedness’ to county periods for ‘fiscal’ rather than years’, accept ‘calendar tax defendants the concise proceedings statement of as certified Honor- Judge.” able John B. Swainson, Circuit attorney general Michigan, of the State of exception intervenor, ment had this concise state- *12 reading as follows: 18 by Beer, Dissenting Oiiinion
" n "“The‘concise proceedings facts,’ of and statement by Swainson, B. Cir- John the Honorable certified accurately por- .Judge, filed in this cause, cuit controversy pending background trays of the legal except irrelevant conclusions for certain accepted.” therein, it is contained controlling exceptions of is this of the Neither judge opinion. below rendered learned trial granting judgment January ruling his plaintiff, follows: reads as and his county Wayne, treasurer, and its “Defendant, by complaint plaintiff’s dismiss the court to move judgment claiming filing motion for accelerated levy county tax was assessment the 1965 th&t validly authority pursuant and that to lawful made August 2, 1965, effective Act Public county taxes, any bearing on the 1965 not have does property on tax status said based on the taxable prospectively day, 1964, but will be December year. for the 1966 tax effective property has been and “Plaintiff claims that provi- by .exempted of the from taxation virtue is never has laws’ and that there said ‘tax sions liability any nor tax been assessment any provisions arising property out taxes on its directly other under laws’, the ‘tax of either dealing and collection with the assessment property. personal on real upon real and “The plaintiff personal of the provisions ‘home pursuance of the plaintiff any provisions included act’ and virtue rule and has been which laws’ from the ‘tax - exempt. Legisla- Michigan August State the law “On given passage effect, immediate aof ture, 116) act’ so as ‘home rule (Public amended the Act re- taxes as those reference to delete *13 '629 R.y. n Dissenting Opinion by Beer,’J. quired paid by transporta- municipally to a be owned utility. tion result of the enactment a statute given plaintiff ‘immediate effect’ has been to cause municipally to forthwith to its normal revert owned plaintiff non-taxable status. This is the status the would had have had it not been for the inclusion of county’ the words ‘and 'rule the so-called ‘home act’. The amendment to the ‘home rule act’ with which we are concerned in did not create this case exemption plaintiff, in favor of defendant argues, exception but instead it eliminated an to an exempt status and the effect thereof was immediate prospective not retroactive. being subject any obligation “Plaintiff, not to payment general prop- taxes under the erty any laws, other law, is relieved from the commencing thereof with the enactment of Act 116 1965, Public and is entitled a refund any county covering any period August after 2,1965. “Upon presentation, judgment will be entered in the amount of $196,637.49without being public interest, without costs, there question involved.” I affirm my would in substance it were not for holding upon by the constitutional issue invoked plaintiff in its brief. I note an error in the trial court’s and state a as matter of law that July 1965,No became effective on 2, 1965. A may constitutional issue, course, be asserted at during proceeding. time of a the course years For more than 100 our constitutions have provided: object “No shall than law embrace more one which expressed
shall in its title.” Const art 20; Const art 21; Const art por- Plaintiff here renews its contention that the supra, imposed upon tion of CL which 117.4f, 18 Dissenting Beer, plaintiff money obligation an annual sum county, a “tax”, denominated agree provision. I violates the above constitutional hold. and would so provision inter
The constitutional has often been preted applied Supreme Prom our principles applicable Court. these decisions certain to our readily construction facts can be a with view discerned. Liberal saving legislation rather than strik ing *14 down v. State Hos it is the directive. Benson pital (1946), Mich 66; Commission Commerce- Savings Michigan & Bank v. State Guardian Trust (1925), (1924), 228 Mich cert. den. US 316, 1164), (45 L there cited. 636, 69 and cases S Ct Ed applied determining whether or not the The test constitutionally body impermis of the act contains generous provisions is a one as sible most spirit title of the The liberal construction. provisions broadly in the and all act is construed auxiliary, “germane, body to” or incidental of the act pass expressed general purpose title as Rogers (1917), v. muster. Loomis constitutional Motors also, 265, See, 197 Mich Continental (1965), Muskegon Township Corporation v. Mich 170. “An act,1 now reads:2 to the home rule title incorporation provide of cities
act to § revising amending 1948, their charters” CL auxiliary germane, incidental 117.4f,then, must be purpose general towas of an act whose to the title governmental Dis- control”. “local School increase City City Pontiac Pontiac trict v. 262Mich 1969 Cum ferent. CL Earlier See Supp titles 117.1 5.2071 applied to these facts ei No seq. et 279; seq.). as amended PA 1911, No 203. (Stat Ann 1949 Eev and are not materially dif 1969] Wayne County Dissenting Opinion by Beer,
CL before PA 117.4f author- county only ized tax and is au- thority brought to our attention which the plaintiff. authorizing could tax Is a statute impose upon public transportation a system germane, auxiliary or incidental to incor- porating revising amending cities and their my understanding In charters? of those I terms portion would hold that CL 117.4f, here embracing involved to be unconstitutional as an ob- ject expressed say in the title. I do not legislature only could not enact such a statute, constitutionally belong it does not in the home rule act. summary, governmental right
In to tax never inappropriate should be exercised under an legislation nor tax to taxation. in a buried statute not related judgment I would vacate the of the lower court again and remand the cause to determine the extent plaintiff’s recovery plaintiff, by now that virtue my opinion, position is in the of one who has tax. unconstitutional public question being No costs, involved.