*1 Reports, 552 336 SCHOOL HEINZE v. JOSEPH TOWNSHIP ST. 1. DISTRICT NO. Law. Effect—Constitutional Statutes—Immediate 1. statute amend- giving immediate effect to legislature in Action of approval in an require an ing general school code so as to districts to be in the school district or annexation election held, not con- to school districts affected annexation legislature trary permitting the provision Constitution to of necessary immediately give to immediate effeet to acts 1908, safety (Const peace, preservation public health or 1952, No 1948, 353.17, PA 21; art CL as amended § § 229). Rights Districts—Annexation—Property and School Schools 2. —Due Process. taxpayers nor individual resident Neither school district a rights to property be annexed thereto have thereof pursuant pertinent completed to until annexation has been amendatory hence, act statutory requirements, enactment of process of annexation and adding requirement another to the annexation had been com- giving it immediate effect before deprivation property of without due pleted not constitute a did 16; CL Const, 14; Const art process (US am Mich § 353.17, 229). as PA No amended Process. 3. Same—Statutes—Annexation—Due process Amendatory requirement a act whieh added eity a made to school district and plaintiff to school district had been before annexation effective invalid, uncertain, completed as indefinite and because not to be and to define it failed to state who was allowed required holding manner where time and property right specifically it is that not shown process in the is involved or that there was a lack due compliance requirement with additional annexa- such for Points in Headnotes Referenoes Jur, 47 Am Schools [1-3] §§ changing officers as bound As to discretion of administrative [1-3] district, 1523; ALR 65 ALR aries of school see 1953] Hist. tion be *2 1952, Const No approved at an 229). days after city’s election CL election called 353.17, as amended (US Const, territory affected am by dissenting.

Btjshnell, J., D.), (Archie J., Appeal McDonald Berrien; from (Docket April No. presiding. Submitted 45,787.) Decided No. June 25, Calendar against by George St. Heinze and others Bill F. restrain Joseph Township No. 1 to District authority area. Bill dis- certain over exercise of appeal. Affirmed. Plaintiffs missed. plaintiffs. all Jr., Preston, for

Arthur G. Colby. Ryan, plaintiffs and T. for John defendant. Grow, L. John Joseph city school district and J." Boyles, complaint taxpayers to en- this bill 2 resident filed Joseph township join dis- school the defendant St. authority exercising any over a certain trict from plaintiffs claim had which been area legally The cir- to the school district. annexed sought, judge the the relief dismissed denied cuit plaintiffs appeal. complaint, and the bill of April held in the town 1952, at an election On proposed ship the an affected and areas majority an electors voted for the nexation, the May legislature enacted 2, 1952, the nexation. On gave an amendment* to PA effect to and immediate (general code), pt ch 1927, No adding re- an additional condition Cum Supp Í5.423). No amending OL 353.17 (Stat Ann 1951 Reports. separate quiring the affirmative This-, approving such annexation. annexed,

to be present litigation. the cause of amendment is proceedings copies May of the were- 7, 1952, On county clerk and secre- filed tary the offices May 12th the annexation of State, on completed by the tion of the board of was resolu- additional conformity with

education, May Probably done, this was on 7th and statute. May given knowledge the amendment without 12th, May requiring 2d the addi-

immediate effect approval. event,, In tional affirmative vote upheld May if the 2d in the- amendment effective is May litigation, May present 7th and the acts taken complete legally It im- 12th annexation. did not requirement posed pleting process of com- an added annexation, as follows: *3 provided, vote- “And That there is an affirmative in an districts in the election in the district or school approving- to be annexed such consolidation. tion board educa- The or boards of having authority in such district dis- school tricts shall call such annexation 30' elections days question after the in been an- has nexed.” township The board of education. compliance requirement,

district, within- with said days called said it was elec- and against tors voted about 2 to 1 Thereupon the consolidation. the board of education of said authority school district continued exercise over present by its school which action the suit district, enjoin. school district seeks to questions, only, plain- urged Two áre here appellants. tiff The immediate effect first that the is given by legislature PA No 229' to said (May 2d), Michigan contrary is Constitu- 1953] 555' v. Dist. (1908), nullity. §5, a tion art therefore provides: pertinent part of section said act shall take effect or he in “No force until the expiration at which the ture priations preservation days of 90 from the end of the session except legisla- passed, is that the same may give making appro- immediate effect acts immediately necessary and acts for the public peace, safety by health or n two-thirds of the members elected to each house.” appellants argue

Counsel for that said PA 1952, immediately necessary pres No 229,was not for the public peace, safety. They ervation of the health or quote rely entirely dissenting opinions from and on in some of the decisions this Court. See New berry beginning page Starr, 247 Mich 404, on beginning page Hull, and 542. 288 Mich 521, They upholding do not cite decision their provision contention that the immediate effect in the amendment of said section No 229, ground is invalid on the that it contravenes- (1908). nothing Constitution findWe present exception case to an make to the rules many uphold announced in decisions of the Court ing provision the immediate effect as valid.* Seem ingly point, Newberry supra, the Court giving provid held immediate effect to an act ing that school districts under certain circumstances single would constitute school district does not violate said article 21, and said: Mich 257 Mich Attorney General, 251 1189, 527; People See Mich 436, 441; ^[30] 247 Mich *4 Attorney General, NCCA 396, 399; v. Urcavitch, ^[661] People 404, 407; 179) ; Hull, 300 Mich (88 v. Naudzius ^[288] v. Detroit Trust Co. v. ALR 210 Mich Bodjack, Industrial ex rel. 1263) ; Barbour, Lahr, 431, 435; 210 Mich Bank In re Slush’s ^[52] 253 Mich v. of People United Insurance Co. v. Lindsay, Stormfeltz-Loveley Co., Wyandotte 443, 454; v. Estate, Stambosva, 178 Mich ^[227] Newberry v. 279 Mich (74 Reichert, ALR ^[210] v. Reports.

556 legislature may have in considered, the in- “The immediately public at it least, health was terest of necessary,-to of cooperation coordination and secure agencies of certain cities and school districts the that each should embrace the act, described same important territory. The act relates to State preservation having agencies public with do safety.” peace, health, Appellants’ claim second is that the amend process ment the due clauses of the United they violates and State In their brief States Constitutions.* deprives argue property plaintiffs that the amendment the process due of law. without appellants’ stumbling progress The block in to- fact that the ward that end lies amendment plaintiffs deprive any property not does rights. erty rights prop- school district has no school school in. district unless it been annexed to the has conformity statutory require- district with the elementary. ments. That would seem be Nor do plaintiffs rights property the individual the have property Attorney of the school district. Gen- Lowrey, eral, Kies, ex rel. 131 Mich s.c. 199 (26 167); Presque L US S Ct 50 ed Isle Prose- Rogers, cuting Attorney Township 313 Mich 1. appellants question Counsel for now raise .that the 1952 amendment is indefinite and uncertain in it not state who is to be allowed to does required vote in the that it not does define time and manner in which the election is to be given, what notice shall be et cetera. No property right specific instance is shown where process involved, that there a lack of due was was question ap- the submission of the involved in US Const, am U, Midi Const (1908), *5 1953] School Dist. the annexation

proving under the 1952 amendment,, or other provisions code.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee. J., C.

Dethmers, and Adams, Butzel, Carr, JJ., J. Sharpe, and Reid, with Boyles, concurred J. be- (dissenting). Reversal should Bushnell, granted for the reasons in Newberry stated at beginning 412, and page Hull, 288 Mich 521, at 542. beginning page

The instant case is an example the difficulties which can result from the “im- misapplication of the mediate effect” concept legislation.

McFADDEN v. McFADDEN. 1. Divorce—Residence—Evidence. held,. adduced in suit Evidence husband’s for divoree proceedings his at time of show residence institution of years prior (CL 1948, for several thereto was in this State 552.9). United States—Service—Residence. person gains anywhere A neither nor loses a residence reason being employed (Const the service of the United States 3, 2). References for Points in Headnotes Jur, Separation [2, 17 Am Divoree and 3] pur [2, What constitutes residence domicil State 3] pose jurisdiction in divoree. 106 ALR 6. person 1413;. or residence of in the armed Domicil forces. 148 ALR 151 ALR 152 ALR 153 ALR 1442.