*1 People 209 1948] v. Piddle. mony gross indecency as to an earlier of act defendant was reversible error.
Tbe conviction and sentence are set a aside and granted. trial new J.,C.
Bushnell, Sharpe, Deth- Reid, North, Carr, JJ., concurred. mers, Butzel, JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY. Insurance—Foreign Companies—Housing Projects. 1. foreign company A insurance power has the to con- struct, operate housing project maintain and a on land within State, and to hold such being land while it is thus used period years 10 they time excess of where are operate projects authorized in the under State the laws organized, of which are being prohibition there no against Constitution granting privilege of such to a cor- poration engaging formed for the in that business (3 Comp. 1929, 12298, 12312, Laws as amended §§ Act No. Pub. Sess.]). Acts 1948 [Ex. Notice—Shortage Housing 2. Adequate Evidence—Judicial Facilities. involving In suit the construction authorizing of statute insur- companies ance operate housing projects, judicial notice is Supreme taken Court of presently the fact that there shortage adequate a critical housing facilities, [1] [1,7,8] [2] [5, [3] [4] 6] L.R.A. 322. 20 Am. 23 11 Am. 11 Am. Am. Right Am. Jur., Jur., Jur., Jur., Foreign References Jur., Constitutional Constitutional Evidence, foreign corporations Constitutional for Points Corporations, § 100. Law, Law, Law, § § in Headnotes 65. 59. to own real § 51. 164. property. Reports. implications derivative public social thereof are a matter concern, having profound health, effect morals community, and welfare and that amounts of capital will housing have to be attracted to investments *2 normally corpora- which only through facilities will be furnished years tions whose to may hold them for more than 10 by challenged (Const. 1908, 12, 5; not be the State art. § Comp. 1929, 12298, 12313, 12312, Laws as amended Act §§ 45, No. Sess.]). Pub. Acts 1948 [Ex. 3. Constitutional Law—Construction—Intent. provision construing In a Constitution, there should be given practical interpretation to it a reasonable and gives to effect the intent and of its framers and the persons adopted who it. Same—Construction—Ordinary Meaning 4. Given to Words. construing In a provision Constitution, of the words therein given are not a meaning technical but are to be used in natural, ordinary meaning, obvious in that sense usage justifies. which common Same—Interpretation op Living 5. Constitution as a Instru- ment. living instrument, The Constitution is a and should be inter- preted in a such manner it adaptable that will remain to the changing necessitudes conditions. op 6. Same—Intent—Basic Foundation State. A State Constituton is not intended be a limitation on the development healthful nor an progress obstruction to the the State for which it principles announces basic to serve as perpetual a foundation. Corporations—Holding op 7. Land—Constitutional Law. corporation A acquired which uses laud it has for corporate purposes franchise, occupies under its such land within the meaning exception of the to the prohibition constitutional against corporate ownership of real estate for more than 10 (Const. 1908, 12, 5). art. § Occupation op 8. Constitutional Law—Construction—Actual by Corporation. Beal Estate “Actually occupied,” as that exception term is used in provi- sion prohibiting Constitution corporations holding from longer years, real estate than 10 does not mean the land needs- occupied to be an physical sense, exclusive but rather that corporations power should have the to own and hold .real Co. 1948] Motor Insurance Ford Life necessary carrying on of as is for the the business estate engage legislature they have been authorized 1908, 5). (Const. 12, art. Corporate 9. Evidence—Judicial Notice—Conduct Business by Agents. carry- corporations, notice taken of the Judicial fact employees agents on ing through their affairs must act housing proj- operation and that in the and maintenance of a corporation ect, necessarily agents must have such and em- (3 ployees premises Comp. 12298, Laws §§ 12312, 12313, as amended Act Pub. No. Acts 1948 [Ex. Sess.]). Corporations—Landlord Housing Project—Actual 10. Oc- cupancy of Real Law. Estate—Constitutional corporation capacity A housing project, in its of a landlord through agents and employees, its exercises dominion over premises occupancy sufficient to constitute actual thereof with- meaning exception provision to the Con- prohibiting corporation holding stitution real estate *3 years (Const. 12, 5; more than 10 1908, Comp. for art. 3 § 1929, 12312, 12298, 12313, Laws 45, as amended Act No. §§ Sess.]). Acts 1948 Pub. [Ex. Housing Project 11. Costs—Public Question—Operation Foreign Company. Insurance in foreign No costs are company’s allowed insurance suit for specific performance of convey contract to land for as use a housing project, wherein vendor plaintiff defendant claimed prohibited by was holding the Constitution from such land public question than 10 a years, being more (Const. involved 1908, 12, 5; Comp. 1929, art. 12298, 12312, Laws §§ 12313, as Act 45, amended No. Sess.]). Pub. Acts 1948 [Ex. Sharpe JJ., dissenting. Reid, Wayne;
Appeal Jayne (Ira W.), J. Submit- April (Docket 8, ted 1948. No. 43, Calendar No. 44,048.) September Decided 8,1948.
byBill John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Com- pany, corporation, against a Massachusetts Ford Company, corporation, specif- a Delaware Motor to ically convey enforce contract to real estate. Bill Michigan Reports. appeals.
dismissed. Plaintiff Reversed and decree entered. Wright, (8el- Cudlip
Dickinson, McKean & Davis, Edgar counsel), den 8. Dickinson and Eowbert, C. plaintiff. for
William, (Charles T. Fellrath, Gossett J. of coun- sel), for defendant.
Raymond Kelley, Corporation Counsel, J. Ingalls, Corporation Vance Counsel, G. Assistant City for of Detroit, amicus curiae. (dissenting).
Reid, J. The bill in this case was specific performance filed to enforce to of contract convey lands. Prom a defendant, decree for plaintiff appeals. pleadings.
The facts are set forth On plaintiff November John Hancock Mutual Company (hereinafter Life Insurance to referred Hancock), corporation, as a Massachusetts entered into a land contract with the defendant Ford Motor Company (hereinafter Ford), provid- referred ing purchase Wayne land in Hancock’s coun- ty, proposed housing which Hancock to build project. obligation convey A condition Ford’s was land Hancock that Hancock should have operate project to own and years subject or more and should not be re- quirement State to divest itself *4 ownership (except by pow- of such an exercise domain). er of eminent On 26, November 1947, Ford convey wrote Hancock of its decision not to the property being opinion to Hancock, Ford the that comply Hancock not could the with above-mentioned agreement. condition of the On 12, 1947, December complaint against Hancock'filed its bill of Ford for 1948] Like Insurance 213 Co. v. specific performance of the In its land contract. alleged inability comply answer, Ford Hancock’s with the condition. plaintiff
Defendant Ford asserted that Hancock operate housing project could not own and the years or more for reasons; First, two that Michigan permit statutes of the State not do foreign company insurance invest its funds enterprise, being such such investment forbidden to Michigan company; insurance second, Michigan § article 12, 5, of State Constitution permit plaintiff of 1908, does not such real hold years, project being estate more than purposes, rental and income not lands actually occupied by Hancock in the exercise of its franchise.
Since this case was Court, submitted legislature State 45, has Act No. Pub. Acts enacted (Ex. Sess.), approved May 14, 1948, to take * immediate effect. Defendant Ford concedes that (Ex. as amended said Act No. Pub. 45, Acts Sess.), provisions of the insurance of Michi code gan (3 Comp. 12313) §§ 1929, 12298, Laws do prohibit companies owning insurance hous ing projects Michigan, permitted if to do so domiciliary question laws. The first raised defendant therefore needs no further consideration at our hands. question,
The second however, still remains for question our determination. That involves a con- struction of article 5, State Constitution of 1908, which'is as follows: corporation
“No shall hold real estate for a period years, longer except than ten such real estate actually occupied by corporation shall be as the of its exercises franchises.” * 24.92—Reporter. Supp. 24.77, 24.91, Stat. Ana. 1948 See §§ *5 Michigan Reports.
214
ques-
We are not
in
concerned
this case with the
may
provisions
tion of who
the
enforce
this sec-
Marquette
tion, for which see Pere
Graham, 136 Mich.
Railroad Co. v.
Corporation
and German
v.
Negaunee
Society,
German
to own, and project period years for a of 30 and or more not be subject any requirement dispose of the lands prior expiration to the 30of quoted
The above section in the Constitution of acquired,” the omits words, “hereafter appeared (otherwise identical) words in a section in following “any the Constitution of 1850 real estate.” Plaintiff claims that words, section question thought was without much “out and of his- torical 1850 inertia” from carried Constitution
into draft of the of 1908, Constitution but that in the meantime the been midwest had settled developed “apprehended and that evils attend- [upon] corporation holding ant land” have entirely— n “largely—if become historical.” How- ever, the framers of the Constitution of 1908 took pains to eliminate the two words, “hereafter ac- quired,” demonstrating thus were care- fully considering provisions of the section in question. Thompson Waters,
This Court has v. 25 Mich. (12 243), Rep. 214, Am. determined 1872 as follows: only, apprehended if main, “The not the evils to be allowing corporations, foreign, domestic or convey danger take, hold or are: lands 1st,-—The becoming speculators lands keeping unimproved thereby amounts, them re-
tarding progress improvement, of settlement and 1948] Like Co. Insurance improved, preventing obtaining settlers from or, if system independent introducing a titles, clear or great inbe, in which the tenants would tenancies *6 dependent corporations; upon measure, 2d,— holding long period The time, of such lands for a they pass by perpetual as succession without change or the break as in case of natural death, persons; wealthy 3d,—The influence which cor- porations, holding large bodies of in the State, land might plied.) legislature.” (Italics sup- exercise the It can be considered that some such matters as expressed above were the considerations for the reincorporation (with exception of the two words noted) question above section in in our State Constitution in 1908. judge judicial general
The trial took notice of a housing shortage Michigan. in Plaintiff asks us to question (Const. construe the section in 1908, article liberally 5) plaintiff 12, § capital Michigan. so as enable to invest argues in Plaintiff that the evils against question section in was framed longer have become historical and are no existent. do not We assume that the evils before mentioned dangers therefrom do not now exist in the same equivalent form or in a modern The thereof. Con- provides stitution a method for amendment and we only giving are here with concerned to the Constitu- tion the effect intended its framers. We do not sup- undertake to alter the Constitution to suit a present posed necessity permitting corporate capital buildings Michigan to own residential in more than 10 “actually occupied”
Plaintiff claims that the words question plaintiff’s section in would admit of operation project housing occupa- of a because the housing tion in the tenants facilities would occupation plaintiff as landlord and be- Reports. repair employees
(cid:127)cause maintenance and
in dis-
charge of their duties would have access to the
buildings
project
various
and thus character-
relationship
property
ize the
owner to the
occupant.
that of an actual
primary importance
It is of
in this case to deter
meaning
“actually occupied,”
mine the
of the words
appearing’
question.
section
This Court
meaning
has had occasion to construe the
of those
Young
Society Mayor,
words Detroit
Men’s
etc.,
Detroit,
private individuals, and used them yards their individual business for wood and coal storage grain, sheds and ‘ac etc., and are neither tually occupied’ by ‘necessary nor railroad proper operation’ use tion properly of the road within sec Comp. 6277, 1897, Laws other therefore are * gen taxable as real estate under the eral law.” supreme Oregon
The
court
in the case of Hibernian
Kelly,
(42
Society
Bene volent
determines its and not the use proceeds. plain made its The and obvious mean- ing only actually of the statute is that the real estate occupied use these different institutions purposes organized for for which were shall exempt occupied "While, from taxation. so *8 competition prop- it used, does come in with the erty purpose other owners; and the for which it supposed by legislature is used was the to be a suf- public justify exemption ficient benefit to the its imposed upon from the burdens of taxation other property. property when But, such is used the * 2 Comp. This is Laws (Stat. 22.257).— Ann. § § Reporter. ' Reports.
purpose accumulating money, imposes imposes the law upon it same the burden taxation as it n property similarly (Italics other situated.” supplied.) apparent Oregon
It is the court construed “actually occupied,” designate the words, the un- portions descriptions rented or of real estate possession direct control and of the owner dis- as tinguished portions descriptions or of real estate rented and “for used of accumu- lating money,” occupied by but the owner’s tenants. plaintiff proposed
In the case at bar, so far as purposes, income-producing for rental construct or purposes, housing project, including apartment buildings dwellings buildings," tenement or other (article 5) section of Constitution for- plaintiff holding longer period bids lands for years. than 10 appealed
The decree from made reference to a opinion written filed in the cause, “with same force' and effect as if the same were herein word for opinion word set out.” The written contains rea- soning and conclusions of law with which we are. not especially accord, construction of the appealed State Constitution. The decree from is to be considered as modified for that reason.
The holding Constitution State forbids the by plaintiff of the lands under the conditions and for purposes contemplated period longer for a than appealed The decree from should af- opinion firmed the reasons set forth in our here- in. Costs to defendant. J., concurred Reid, J.
Sharpe, with J. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Butzel, Company, herein to as Hancock, is entitled referred specific performance prayed to the decree of for in *9 1948] Lire Co. v. Ford Insurance Motor complaint. right power bill of its It has and to operate housing project construct, maintain and a purchase on land it to seeks defendant, Company, and to land while hold such being period it is thus for a in used of time excess 10of foregoing opinion, Michigan
As stated in the Comp. (3 insurance code §§ Laws 1929, 12298,12312, 12313) recently was No. 45, amended Act Pub. (Ex. Sess.) empower foreign Acts to insur * companies doing ance business this State invest housing projects including their funds “in incidental and retail service within facilities Michi State gan, if such investment is within the franchise of country insurer such under the laws State organized.” under which insurer such is There is question no but under franchise from the its State of Massachusetts Hancock is authorized to purchase property any real State the United States which it is authorized transact business operate maintain and thereon construct, a housing project. (Ex.
The net Act No. 45, effect of Pub. Acts 1948 Sess.) grant foreign is to to domestic and insurance companies privilege engage in the owning, operating maintaining business housing projects Michigan.
within the The State of prohibition Constitution of our State contains no against granting privilege corpora- of such to a engaging tion formed for the that busi- any may why privilege nor ness, there reason such granted existing specifical- corporation, to an ly, company. to an insurance only question disposed
The to be of is whether or our 12, 5, Constitution, not article State corporation provides that “no shall hold real period years, longer except estate than ten * 24.92.—Reporter. 24.77, Supp. 24.91, Stat. Ann. 1948 See §§ Michigan Reports. actually occupied
such real estate as shall be corporation franchises,” exercise of its prevents corporation empowered which has been *10 by legislature engage in the business of owning, operating maintaining housing proj- a holding necessary ect from carrying the real estate for the longer period
on of such business a than judicial We take notice of the fact that at the present shortage adequate time housing a critical of particularly facilities State, exists our county Wayne, of and that the derivative social im- plications public thereof are a matter of concern, having profound upon a effect the health, morals community. and welfare of the of the fact that We also take notice capital of amounts will have housing to be attracted to investments in facilities presently existing if the condition is to be alleviated, capital and that such as a rule cannot or will not be only by through furnished individuals, but or corporations purpose having formed for that say, corporations to invest. funds will Needless such to make hesitate if investments longer period years may to hold them be a than 10 challenged by the State. foregoing opinion,
In the the cases of Detroit Young Society Mayor, Men’s v. etc., Detroit, 3 Rapids Mich. and Grand Railway & Indiana City Rapids, (4 Co. v. Grand 137 Mich. 587 Ann. 1195), upon support interpreta- are relied Cas. placed upon “actually occupied” tion the term used in article 12, 5, of the Constitution. In each these cases Court was called to construe granted exemption a statute which from taxation to corporations certain institutions and as to lands actually occupied by them in the exercise of their privileges Rapids and franchises. In Grand & In- Railway City Rapids, supra, diana Co. v. Grand Co. Life Insurance 1948]
we possession that land owned a held railroad bnt in the private individuals who used it in their individual businesses for lumber and coal stor- grain age yards, elevators, et cetera, was actual- ly occupied by exempt the railroad as to be so page taxation under the statute. The said Court on 591: railway company, “When, consent of its exclusively land is devoted to a business it lawfully engage—a foreign
cannot business to the organization—such my itsof land is not, judgment, ‘actually occupied’ by it, and is ‘not neces- sary proper operation or in use in the road,’ its * * * and is, under the therefore, statute, taxable ” ‘like other real estate.’ may lawfully engage
Here, Hancock in the busi- operating housing project—the legislature ness *11 granted privilege. has it this Therefore, the test applied in cited case, e., i. whether or not the corpora- land is devoted to a in which business only lawfully engage, operates can tion to sustain power Hancock the real hold estate for a longer period 10 than Young Society Mayor, In Detroit etc., Men’s supra, portion
Detroit, it was held that that of a building owned a charitable institution which was enterprise exempt rented to a commercial was reasoning from taxation the statute, under the Court occupancy contemplated by that actual the stat- ute must be “exclusive.” The Court said: “Exemption though laws of character, benefi- objects, derogation equal cient are in rights, strictly.” and must be construed reasoning application
This no has in the instant case, as here we are not confronted with a statute strictly which must be constitutional construed, but rather with a
provision, part a of our fundamental 322 Reports. organic given a be reasonable and law, should practical interpretation gives effect to the persons intent and and the its framers adopted given who it. Words used therein are to he ordinary meanings their natural, obvious and meaning. not a technical In M’Culloch v. Maryland, (17 S.) 579), (4 U. L. 316, Wheat. Ed. Chief discussing interpreta- Justice said in Marshall placed tion to be a word used the Federal Constitution: language, “Such the character human is conveys
no all word to the one mind, situations, single nothing idea; definite is more common figurative than to use words a sense. Almost all compositions contain words, which, taken in their rigorous convey meaning sense, would a different obviously from that which is intended. It essen- just many tial to construction that words which im- port something excessive be should understood in mitigated more sense—in that sense which common usage justifies.” living
The is- instrument, Constitution interpreted in such a manner that it should will adaptable changing to the remain necessitudes In Am. Jur., Law, Constitutional conditions. p. said: it is usually announces “A certain Constitution basic perpetual principles as the to serve foundation of It is not intended to be a the State. limitation on development healthful nor an obstruction to its its *12 Accordingly, progress. the courts are not inclined adopt a technical or strained such construction as impair unduly efficiency legislature of will responsibilities changing meet occasioned condi- society. proper It tions of to assume that a Con- applied intended to meet stitution is and be to new they may and conditions circumstances as arise in progress community. the course of the The 1948] Like Insurance Co. country
courts have shown a determination give by interpretation, our Constitutions, written flexibility bring as will them into with accord public what the courts believe to be interest. Their provisions being constantly expanded terms and are enlarged by advancing and construction to meet the improving affairs of men.” provision question The ap- constitutional first peared in our Constitution 1850. At that time emerging agrarian we were from an era there corporations were but few in existence. No need yet many large had arisen for the structures and buildings corporate which have since been built with capital. There was a universal distrust of corporations monopolistic because of their tenden- history cies. Past had demonstrated that when cor- porations agricultural accumulated vast tracts of purposes speculation, land and held them for progress improvement of settlement and in the State Undoubtedly was retarded. the framers of the Con- things provi- stitution had these in mind when the sion was drafted.
In the Constitutional Convention of 1867 there lengthy regarding was a debate meaning provision. It seems clear to us delegates those inclusion of the were vast had no use in the to the convention who advocated the
provision in the new Constitution primarily concerned over the accumulation by corporations they tracts lands for which
carrying corporate on of their They business. were not concerned about the ac- quisition by corporations purposes of lands con- objects organ- with sistent for which were Delegate Chapin, proponent Thus, ized. of the (1 provision, said Constitutional De- Convention p. seq.): 1867, bates, et suffering all are over “We the State land conse-
quence monopolizing by wealthy in- *13 Reports. by corporations. I would well as dividuals ANY corporations lands give LONGER to hold these NECES- THAN IS ABSOLUTELY THEIR REALIZE THEM TO ENABLE TO SARY WHICH FOR THE PURPOSE FOR VALUE WERE GRANTED.” THEY provision opponent Delegate an of the- McKernan, presented, said: been in which it had in the form really opposed for I section, this whole “I to am necessity for it. that there is no consider attempt to me like an dis- “This section looks corporations. against of those I am one criminate legislation, willing go toor into class who are not make against particular cor- distinction for * * * porations. (meaning corpora- willing them “I am to allow belong, properly tions) to them in the exercise of privileges that should all the and to franchises, necessary to en- allow them able the real estate to hold carry That is as them to on their business. go; willing I I not in favor of allow- far as am ing am * * * special privileges. them especially companies, mining more our iron “Our companies, possess large land in must amount of necessary fuel timber to order to obtain the carry operations them enable on their successful- ly. land, And much as 10,000 Some of them own as acres year. probably 10,000 and use of wood cords consequently, carry in order to on their busi- successfully they any length time, ness must own a amount of land. But section here proposed to be inserted in the Constitution, will obliged years.” to sell their land at the end of 10 argument by say- Delegate Morton answered this ing: think will of this section at close the words “I Superior country Lake all the cases
cover I allude to The words have referred to. been are these:
1948] Co. v. Life Insurance “ ‘Except actually estate such real as shall be corporation occupied the exercise of its *14 franchises.’ companies desire the of 200 or 300 iron use “These year in of their of wood-land a the transaction acres years
business; consume And under that the course 10 or 15 and in of would they all timber the land now have. the portion of this I section which have they years, the read, even at end will, of be al- in.possession any lowed to continue of their lands, to ‘actually occupied by amount, when them in the ex- ” ercise of their franchises.’ inescapable Delegate The conclusion is that Mor- provision ton corporation understood to mean that where a acquired uses the land it has for corporate purposes under its it franchise, “occu- pies” meaning provision. the land within the of the purpose provision The full of the is further demon- Delegate Conger, strated er statement anoth- proponent it,of that “It is desirable that there be a should limitation regard corporations holding
with sary to lands not neces- the exercise The Con- for franchises. provision remedy stitution should contain a to this evil.” again The matter was debated in the Constitu- say, tional Convention of 1907-1908. to Needless changed many respects conditions had in since 1850. Many corporations in were it existence, had be- proper thing come the usual and office buildings, apartments, et hotels, cetera, be erected by corporations purpose. and owned formed for that way capital In no other which were could vast amounts
required improvements to make such undoubtedly have been accumulated. This must delegates been known have to the to the Convention, many lawyers practiced them were who in this At Court. a motion Convention, was made that Reports. provision question be from the new deleted ground longer no that it served
Constitution on purpose. (Proceedings and Debates useful pp. 337, 1907-1908, Constitutional Convention point- 338.) Delegate making motion, Pratt, corporations had formed for that been ed out dealing and that cor- real estate, property porations be hold their should allowed to ready Delegate Heckert, sell it. until were provision, proponent to this a argument: said answer pre- in there is to limitation reason “The lying buying ad- the land corporations all vent jacent adjacent land would whatever them and * * * indefinitely. holding There it that, corporations, placed on somewhere *15 a limit be should engaged buying of or sell- business, not that in other * * * engaged Corporations ing real estate. ought not to be allowed to hind business another of they indefinitely buy the land are able all hold and pay for.” proponent pro- Delegate Townsend, another of vision, said: certainly nothing- provision) (meaning is “It why corpora- there are reasons unreasonable, and powers their, their outside tions not extend should of engage in and con-
general in a business which business, occupy they trol own and accumulate or could real estate.” tracts of proponent provi- Delegate of the Hawkins, also a sion, said: providing provision Constitution, of the old “This except corporations not hold real estate should
that corporate in the exercise of their them that used salutary powers, and wholesome. It has been a is elementary part upwards of law, our our Constitution, only right by Now, of 50 Co. Like Insurance 1948] may they that acquire real outside estate, and hold them because used, inherent, is and comes to prop- they may compelled fact that to take erty by way foreclosure, or to a debt one secure they property at another, form be in need or the time they which when are with of, but vested powers their full corporate powers they exercise their full not need.”
do Delegate However, Pratt’s motion was lost. on a subsequent reading provision, that a motion again it be stricken out the Constitution was made (Proceedings 1345.) p. him. and Debates, Dele- gate replied: Townsend why “I cannot understand the motion was made. provision It is old Constitution. It thought evidently
was tion was framed that it was at the time old Constitu-
important to limit the by corporations. time real estate could be held I do why today know the same reason does not exist as it did then.” upon being
And what asked this reason was, he said: only give corporations “The reason we can is that only by only
are created law, exist virtue of always the law. one This is of the restrictions it has thought place upon been wise to them, that purchase shall quantity not accumulate or rather except purposes of real estate and hold it, why pro- Now, business. we should strike this *16 vision out I certainly any cannot If see. it ever had use it today.” has the same use
Delegate argued: Pratt then good by possible to be is conserved “What explain why provision I the framers the ? cannot put it into the Constitution, un- Constitution corpora- born the universal distrust of less it was present beyond At tions that time. we are at that Michigan Reports. organized corporations cre- and are There distrust. ated purpose of the for State laws of this under why selling those cor- buying Now, real estate. real to hold their porations be allowed not should ready get they I con- that it, to sell cannot until estate company Why which thinks railroad a ceive. piece may a certain have to use time it at some buy siding, property it and not be allowed to should for a keep it I understand.” cannot replied: Delegate Townsend To which buy- say far that so to that I would “In answer ing selling cer- is concerned there is real estate authority question they tainly that have no but buy that business real when is their and sell estate questioned it has never been charters; under their they right. provision here for have that that This owning preventing real them from they at have no use tracts, estate which and, they all in do not exercise their franchises, in their use business recognized It was thus in the discussions that provision only corporations prevent was intended accumulating they use real estate which had no carrying It need for in the on of business. any by proponents was asserted “actually provision occupied” land, be occupied corporation, phys- an had be exclusive contrary, it admitted that ical sense. To was corporations power to own hold have the should carrying necessary for the on estate as is such real have been authorized to of the business legislature. engage pointed in 1947 an effort was be out that It should supra, fol- to read as to amend article made : lows corporation period hold real estate “No shall years, except
longer real estate than such actually corporation occupied as shall *17 1948] Life Insurance 229 Co. exercise of That Provided, its franchises: in villages populations or 5,000 cities with in excess of as determined the last Federal decennial census any or Federal decennial taken, census thereafter including exceeding and from the a an area not distant miles boundary villages, limits of such cities or corporation may hold real estate shall as actually occupied not be in the exercise of its fran- period years.” chises for a of not to exceed proposed present This did not amendment to the people of the same our State issue which con- now question presented fronts Court. The to the period during voters was whether not the of time corporations may. hold in lands urban areas, occupied by actually them in the exercise of franchises, their years. should extended 10 to 30 question presented
The to this Court is en- tirely corporation different: Does a which has been operate own, enfranchised to and maintain a hous- ing project actually occupy necessary the land carrying meaning on of such business within the phrase pro- it in as is used the constitutional proposed adopt- vision ? If the amendment had been ed, not, it was issue a case such as the present one would have been the same, it is interpretation phrase which is to be made of the “actually occupied” which determines whether or corporation not the is limited its to hold the question period specified real estate in to the of time provision. in corporation occupy
How does real estate? We may judicial corpora- take notice of the fact that carrying through on their tions, affairs, must act agents employees, operation and housing project corporation of a and maintenance necessarily agents employees have such must premises. capacity In its as landlord, and through agents employees, its it do- exercises Michigan Reports. *18 in sufficient, opinion, our the premises
minion over thereof within the occupancy actual to constitute provision. constitutional meaning with this in accordance will be entered A decree public question being opinion costs, a but without involved. J.,C. Boyles, North, Dethmebs,
Bushnell, J. Carr, JJ., Butzel, concurred with COMMISSIONER. MORAN STATE BANKING Bank—Necessity—Finding op Banking—-New Com- Banks and 1. missioner. banking denying review action of State commissioner In suit to permission organize him for a State bank application to $2,500,000 large capital of and to be located office with quarters already equipped operation well building in city population lease in with 1940 under a favorable bank parent are 6 banks with 99 1,623,452 and in which there city banking, largest engaged commercial has branches any city corresponding size, except per bank of deposits States, percentage proportion of bank two in the United deposits lower than in the other capital to was cities exception percentage and the debit increase for one with higher larger cities, year was than com- recent necessity finding that there was no for such missioner’s new (Act presented 341, 26, No. held, error under evidence bank § 1937). Acts Pub. Points References Headnotes Jur., Banks, 28. [1, 7 Am. § 4] Statutes, Jur., 292. 50 Am. § [3] [5] Jur., Banks, 9. 7 Am. § Banks, Jur., Am. 10. [6,13] 7