*1 Mary Jane 591 Min or-Dietiker Stores. v. Court. alleged Consequently the facts as this” ease partial summary of motion for for denial called grounds judgment 1963,' under the in G-CR indicated 117"2. ap- remanded trial. Costs to
Reversed and pellant.
Fitzgerald and J. H. concurred. Gillis, JJ., LINES, INC., v. DETROIT. CITY OF NORTHVILLE COACH Decision Court. System—Operation Corporations—-Transportation Municipal
1. Corporate Limits. Outside transportation system municipally-owned outside Operation of exempted Constitution 24; CLS statutory (Const art law § 1961, 117.4f). § Same—Transportation System—Construction Statutes— 2. Adjacent—Adjoining.
Adjacent
adjoining,
provision
home-
are used
as terms
facility
authorizing
operate a
rule act
adjacent and
and its
“within its
any portion
its
of 10 miles from
distance
[1-3,
[6]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[12]
[4] 5.0
Power
43
porate
Am38
5 Am Jur
5, 7,11] 38 Am
50 Am
Am50
Am
Am
limits.
Jur,
Jur, Municipal Corporations
Jur,
Jur,
Jur,
municipal
2d, Appeal
References
Public
Statutes §§
Statutes
Statutes §§
49 ALR
Jur, Municipal Corporations
Utilities
corporation
and Error §
1239,
Dissenting Opinion. 10. Statutes—Construction. given all its so that should be construed A statute effect inoperative superfluous, part provisions, will be so that no insignificant. void, or Corporations—Construction Municipal Home-Rule Act. provision suburbs, as used Adjacent and operation municipally-owned trans- act relative to system, portation hinds is construed to mean two á'Afferent (8) suburbs, nearby touching but not those (CLS touching bounding point on line at some or some those 1961, 117,If). Statutes—Construction—Nonrepeated Words. inopera- not become section a statute do Words enacted one merely by nonrepetition in a later sub- tive their the fact of paragraph the same section. Fitzgerald
Appeal
Wayne;
(Neal),
J. Sub-
at
mitted Division 1
Detroit.
October
(Docket
365.)
April 12, 1966. Leave
No.
Decided
*3
appeal granted by Supreme
1 and
Court June
20, 1966.
Micb
Micb
June
See 377
Complaint Line, Inc., Northville Coach Railway city of Detroit the of Detroit Street enjoin extending seeking defendant from bus Michigan road. into Livonia on Seven Mile service corporation, Michigan Association, Motor Bus Judgment plaintiff. for defendant. intervened as appeal. re- Reversed and Plaintiff and intervenor manded. counsel) (Samuel Leib, of & Leib W.
Leib plaintiff. Brady Veale,
Edmund M. M. for inter- and John venor. Zechman,
Manuel for defendant. 2 Lines, Plaintiff Nortliville Coach H. J. Gillis, predecessor service bus have conducted Inc., and its return, Nortliville, via to Detroit Livonia, from operated This been under service has since the appropriate of the Michi- orders certification public gan service commission under Michigan act, carrier CL 1948 CLS motor seq., (Stat amended, et Ann and 1961, 475.1 seq.). Supp § ei Ann 1963 22.531 Stat Cum acquired system city The defendant of Detroit then 1922 and has of lines since operated both cor- bus lines outside its municipally porate through a owned utility department railways now called the of street (DSR). August its route defendant extended 10, 1964,
On shopping newly center near include a constructed northwesterly and Middle- corner Seven Mile the belt route via the in Livonia. This extended roads Heights, city Dearborn Dearborn, City part of Livonia Garden previously. had serviced and the Both Nortliville Coach Lines service along Mile road. extended Seven DSR service by extension of Concurrent service "Wayne in the instituted this cause DSR, Nortliville county asking court, a determination circuit expan- not authorized to undertake Detroit was receipt application without to and of service sion Michigan public authority com- injunction. mission, and an Michigan intervenor, Plaintiff Motor Bus Associ- operated group privately ation, owned and *4 operating the carriers, motor in various localities of appeared State, amicus curiae. as Following hearings, held the the court DSR’s operations as motor carrier the area involved 1966] Northville Detroit. Lines v. Cotjkt. the by were authorized boundaries outside (PA 279, No amended 1909, as the seq., amended, et 1961, 117.1 as [CL 1948 and CLS Supp (Stat Ann 1963 Cum 1949 Rev Stat Ann operations seq.)]), were §5.2071 and that such et provisions Michigan exempt of the motor from the Judgment 21, entered December was act. carrier 1964, complaint. appeal dismissing A claim of the subsequently Supreme the Court was filed with January to this Court order dated transferred argument, point their outset of at the Plaintiffs, absolutely prohibit they the to do seek out that operations outside its carrier motor defendant’s only same them to the to boundaries, but plain- apply to carrier act as provisions the motor Michigan public serv- authorizes the That act tiffs. requisite operating- grant ice commission required by “public authority convenience whenever they necessity.” conclude, if, defend- Thus, and ant need additional claims, there were Livonia, defendant would opportunity need as to meet such have same plaintiff. challenges right essence,
In operate of Detroit outside the DSR serving without the same areas serves Livonia, apply purview coming rules that of the to it. which would be either
No case is side cited of the entire outcome in the matter. The decisive interpretation upon or falls cause rises govern. Our Con- statutes Constitution operation exempt an such as does stitution statutory law. of the DSR from the provided trans- In portation art it is 7, 24, Const municipality provided may be *5 n 2 596 op Opinion the Court. point, more in further thereof, but
the inhabitants say: goes to on city Any corporate limits. outside “Services * * * may operate transportation
village lines may municipality within such outside be prescribed by (Emphasis supplied.) law.” “prescribed by law?” The has been What, then, supra, provides: 4f, act, home-rule section * * * may city provide: in charter “Each its constructing operating (2) owning, For within and its its facilities a distance suburbs within portion of 10 from of its limits.” miles (Emphasis supplied.) dispute There is no the service under falls within 10-mile limitation. consideration The issue is whether or the DSN is author- here supra, act, ized under the home-rule provisions and under to of the charter of Detroit municipality operate a which line bus contiguous limits. This Court’s to its on term turn the construction decision must 4f(2) “adjacent as found section supra. act, dictionary supply of ad- Plaintiffs definitions synonymous jacent, adjoining, words and of law, too, these two terms. Case is furnished plaintiffs support “adjacent their contention that joined adjoining” mean Detroit interpretation physically, which an would automat- departed ically rule Livonia. The trial court out plaintiff’s interpretation and held that operation transporta- did not limit home-rule act any respect municipality in other tion facilities operations such of 10 than to restrict a distance Coach Lines v. Detroit. the Court. city limits. The miles from the trial court based 4f(3) opinion on section its home-rule act provides: *# * city may provide: “Each charter * ** operation transporta- and for the municipality tion lines without the *6 miles from its limits.” significantly, adjectives “adjacent Most and adjoining” appear subparagraph (3). do in The opinion, judge, trial in his states: legislature adjacent opera- “Had the tions to the desired to limit such only, limitation, specifically applied would have to permissible well provisions paragraph charter 3 as paragraph inas 2.” agree. legis- If "Withthis conclusion do not permit municipally intended to trans- owned lature portation system operate anywhere
to 10-mile of its radius there was no need adjectives “adjacent to include the language subparagraph (2). in the Without adjectives, present these this extension of service clearly the DSR would question be authorized. It is not why legislature didn’t the include the adjectives subparagraph (3) they why did use subparagraph (2). them in The terms adjoining used act this are construed to mean having boundary. solely permissible
Subparagraph (2) deals
with
provisions concerning transportation
charter
facil-
subparagraph (3)
ities, whereas
deals with a multi-
subjects including
purchase
tude of
con-
private property
public
demnation of
use.
legislative
intent
to
relative whether or not
municipal transportation system
can extend itself
noncontiguous
suburbs within a 10-mile limit
Apr
2 Court.
portion of the
from that
should he discerned
specifically with the situation.
most
deals
compelled
Thus,
resolve the issue
this Court
subparagraph (2),
not unmindful
reference
inconsistency
subparagraph (3).
seeming
with
supposed
of a
It is
to be
section
statute
intelligible purpose.
Peo
was inserted
ple,
no
See
Supervisors
Bristol,
ex rel.
v. Board of
Ingham County (1870),
With public jurisdiction the service com- to the approval of the com- seek the It need not mission. lawfully might undertake. action mission municipally point DSE, that the as remains The may only system, do that owned authority permits. to do Its which the home-rule act by governed any particular our act is or not to do by provisions the limited as Constitution only permits the Detroit act. This operate railways in department street upon Detroit. touch the day may can- urban needs modern It well be that adequately circumstances, but in be met these legislative problem and cannot concern is one of this Court. a relevant this considered issue be ' Lines v. Detroit. Opinion op the Coukt. Judgment and the reversed case remanded to the entry enjoining court for of an circuit order the operation extending DSK. further
Livonia and such relief as the circuit court appropriate opinion. in accordance deems No with this question being costs, involved. J.,C. concurred with H. G-illis, J. J.
Lesinski, (dissenting). an an- We venture question posed majority opinion swer to the in the phrased question It was thus: why legislature adjectives didn’t the include the (adjacent adjoining) (3) subparagraph and why they subparagraph (2)? did them in use they
Our answer is this: because intended given words be an effect intended certain clear definitions their inclusion. majority, elaboration, without makes the adjoining
statement that, “The terms having as used in this act are construed to mean boundary.” proper writer believes that the construction This “adjacent term suburbs” is legislature that the had reference to two different “adjacent “adjoin- kinds of suburbs: suburbs” and ing being long either sanctioned, so suburbs”, limitation 10-mile is adhered to. boundary” placed
,In the “common construction majority, “adjacent on the words the term “adjoining is defined to mean adjoining”. joined legislature
It difficultto believe conjunctively meaning thing two terms the identical majority and, with the word as have the would reader believe. *8 Statutory Construction,
Sutherland’s states, “A statute lie should construed so that effect 2 Mich Dissenting Opinion by part provisions, will be given that no all so
is superfluous, insignificant.” inoperative or and void “adjacent Clearly, that which holds a construction adjoining” “adjoining adjoining” and means and judicial that the word a superfluous. determination (1956), Township In Battle Creek Stadle v. construing “In statement, we find phrases accepted in their and are statute, words ordinary sense.” impression involving defini-
In a matter of first Dic- tion, Webster, turn to New International tionary (3d ed), defini- which furnishes as first “adjacent”, far tion of “1 a: not distant or off: nearby touching”, stating presumptively but not usages these the common of the word. the other defines “ad- hand, On the same volume joining” “touching bounding point as: or at some space.” or on some line: near in “adjacent adjoining” it that then be said Can say boundary?” “having To so is mean say dictionary repudiate clear definition and that than one words are better two similar redundancy. legislative effectuated intent is best opinion contrary, it To the is the writer’s “adjacent two dif- suburbs” means nearby (1) those ferent of Detroit suburbs: kinds bounding touching; touching at those point or on some line. some inconsistency” majority suggests “seeming 4f(2) 4f(3) subparagraphs because the between terms “adjacent not reiterated are objection 4f(3). however, This when vanishes, in one section is remembered words enacted inoperative merely by do not become fact of nonrepetition subparagraph in a their later same section. *9 601 Lines v. Detroit. Dissenting a
Authority for 10-mile operation of the DSR is 4f(2) found both It 4f(3). in 4f(2) is told are miles encompasses this 10 both ad- jacent suburbs and adjoining suburbs and that no artificial restriction of or contiguity actual physical touching imposed is to be as is imposed ma- opinion. jority
theOn total record us, before no ground pre- sented which would have warranted granting the injunction prayed for and the judgment should be affirmed.
PEOPLE NAPOLITANO. v.
PEOPLE v. KEDZIERSKI. 1. Warrant—Probable Arrest—Without Cause. believes, good A or police believe, officer who has reason to person felony, good believe, has committed a or has reason to person committing felony presence, prob- that a in his has able person (CL 1948, cause to arrest without warrant 764.15). Drugs— n 2. Searches Seizures—Probable Cause—Narcotic Suppression op Evidence. by police Seareh and seizure of contraband officers when investi- gating apartment p.m. call at 10:55 at in which defendants present, observing appearing were after vials to contain narcotic drugs, whereby tablets, morphine there was obtained 83 91 tablets, pantopon tablets, grains codeine pow- and 251 held, opium dered not unlawful inas violation of either United prohibiting States State Constitutions unreasonable searches seizures, henee, suppress quash motion to the evidence por References Points in Headnotes 2d, Jur Am Arrest 25. [1] [2] [3] Jur, 47 Am 6-10, Searches Seizures §§ 2d, 21 Am Jur Criminal Law §§