*1 Michigan Reports. Mich wherein this Court ruled an Cooper, property ordinance is unreasonable which restricts boundary upon village line of a ato use for which property adapted.” is not expressions Under above of this Court and the facts in case, we think the trial court made proper disposition of these cases. party prevailed having No costs,
Affirmed. neither in full. J., C. Carr, Kelly, Black, Kavanagh, Souris, O’Hara, JJ., concurred.
Smith, VALENTINE v. REDFORD TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR. Repeal by Implication 1. Statutes — —Veterans’ Preference Act —Township Civil Service Act. held, The veterans’ by repealed not to have been implication as employees by civil act, although the latter act was later and contained general repealing repealing clause therewith, aets conflict where an specifically amendment required thereto the civil serv- keep ice commission to a roster of members of the fire and poliee department, together service, with a record of military experience, naval appears it prefer- ence act had been specifically amended if there were a conflict between it county and the later-enacted service act prevail the latter (CL 1948, should seq., 35.401 et § amended; seq., 38.401 et as amended; 38.501 et § amended). [8] [9] [10] [1, 2, [3, 5, [7] 10 Am Am50 10 Am 4] 6] Am 50 Am 50 Am .Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, References Jur, Jur, Statutes Civil Service Civil Service 11. Costs Statutes Statutes §§ 10,11, 518. for Points §§ §§ 363. 10, 11, 534-551. 23. 14. Headnotes in Twp. Supervisor. Repeal Implication. 2. Same — Repeal implication permitted is not if can it be avoided whereby reasonable construction of they the statutes can purpose be reconciled and a found to be served eaeh. *2 3. Same —Construction Statutes. duty possible The of the courts is to reconcile statutes if and them, subject general being enforce statutes on the same regarded part system of 1 being as and later statutes con- supplementary strued as preceding to those them. Repeal by Implication. 4. Same — A later repeal by impli- statute will be held to former statute only incompatible cation when the acts are that both cannot stand. Township 5. Same — Civil Service Act —Veterans’ Preference Act. township designed provide, The civil service aet was in the public interest, civil upon service based upon to confer in- employees, certain benefits civil service cluding tenure, rights promotion, and need not others previously-enacted be considered irreconcilable with the veter- preference purpose discharging, ans’ aet enacted for the measure, gratitude in a public the debt of the owes to veterans war, by who have served in armed the services in time of granting original preference employment them a re- publie (CL 1948, seq., tention thereof service 35.401 et § amended; amended). as 38.501 et § Township 6. Civil Same — Service Act —Veterans’ Preference Act. irreconcilability township Claim of between the civil service law preference effectively by and the veterans’ aet is refuted provision the former now requiring fact contains a keep civil policemen service commission to a roster of together military a record experience of their ot naval appointee and the latter aet thereunder, that an aside from the due him veteran, possess as a shall other requisite qualifications, by after credit allowed (CL 1948, 35.401, by eivil service laws as amended 179; 38.509). PA No Townships —Detectives—Civil 7. Service Act —Veterans’ Pref- Discharge. erence Act — township police discharged by Detective on force who was supervisor, upheld by township action which was commission, hearing by but who was not afforded a township board, timely requested, pre- he had was not Reports. job remaining previous in his under eluded from rights would still Ms civil service act
preference act as future (CL 1948, 35.401, subject commission determination 38.507, 38.511, by 179; PA No CLS §§ 38.514). Repeal. 8. Statutes — an of a statement the title of purpose The and effect therewith, repeal inconsistent purposes was to all acts of its containing a section the title to accommodate included language have fallen with the repealing must be deemed to by 19, repealed (PA of the section 267). 1945, No by Township Townships Detective—-Hearing Board —Vet- 9. — erans’ Preference Act —Reinstatement—Mandamus. force, township veteran, employed who A as detective on hearing by follow- board had not been accorded a timely protest discharge supervisor, is not auto- ing matically to have the reinstated failure as the hear- accorded board as right ing precede the reinstatement and Ms thereto must *3 hence, township board, he dependent upon of the the decision compel yet mandamus to reinstatement is not as entitled to seq., amended). 1948, (CL 35.401 et Party Prevailing in Full —Mandamus. 10. Costs —Neither by discharged proceeding in mandamus No costs are allowed reinstatement, compel township police force to Ms detective on township required to conduct ac- where the board is preference since neither corded Mm seq., et party prevailed (CL full has amended). J., dissenting. Souris, Wayne; A.),
Appeal (Joseph from Sullivan J. (Calendar No. Docket 1963. Submitted June September 49,879.) 1963. No. Decided against Mc- Mandamus Jack James Valentine Township township supervisor, the Bedford Donald, Township Com- Board and the Bedford Service Civil police depart- compel on mission to reinstatement preference denied. ment under act. veterans’ Writ Twp. Supervisor. v. Bedford appeals. for issu- and remanded Plaintiff Reversed requiring hearing ance of writ board. counsel), (Ronald Rothstein,
Marvin M. Bláke / plaintiff. . Kovinsky Young, (Allen & Kasoff, Gottesman J. Kovinsky, counsel), for defendants. honorably discharged Plaintiff is an J. Dethmers, February Prior
marine War II. of World was a detective on 1961, he the Bedford police department. On date he was notified township supervisor from letter that, effec- immediately, permanently he tive was removed as police department member im- because of moral conduct. (CL No 205, as amended 1948, 35.401 [Stat
et Ann 1961 Bev 4.1221 seq.]), prefer honorably discharged et is “An act to of members for armed forces of the United States
public every public employments” department every county municipal of the State and of cor- vet- poration commonly thereof. It is known as provides erans’ act. Section positions. hiring for such holding Section that no veteran employment any public department of the State city county, township, or shall be removed except specified therefrom for certain misconduct, only hearing, and then after full in the case of a *4 township, township right before the board, which veteran protest if waives, he fails to a however, file written days day
with the board within 30 from the of his removal. The statute further hearing shall be afforded veteran within days filing protest. after the of his Beports. (CL 1948, 38.501 No amended as et [Stat 1958 Bev 5.3351 amended et as pro- seq.]), act, the civil service hereinafter called police a civil service vides adopted municipalities, departments if fire voting majority thereon. therein a electors township adopted by It the electors was permits removal of in a that act 1952. Section department only for cause member public hearing upon after a before and, his demand, the civil commission. February plaintiff a demand for 28, 1961,
On filed hearing and a commission, before civil service protest of his with the board dismissal under the veterans’ act. hearing public as demanded,
A had, was plaintiff’s commission. It sustained appealed, circuit certiorari, to the removal. He action of affirmed the The court court. service appeal been therefrom has commission. taken to this Court. hearing before the never afforded
Plaintiff was act. board under veterans’ because such He reinstatement demanded days protest, after his was not held within Upon sought provided act. he denial thereof compel court to his circuit reinstate- mandamus ment accordingly. This denied was the circuit plaintiff appeals here. court. From that it that, contend the exent that had Defendants prefer- application situation, subsequently repealed en- ence act has been acted civil service plaintiff act. This the denies. interesting It note that the civil service provid- originally contained section 19 enacted, ing: *5 Twp. Supervisor. v. parts “All acts in conflict with acts and hereby repealed
provisions act are insofar they provisions of this act.” conflict with the repealed 267. More 1945,No Section 19 was significant of PA that, is fact after enactment (CL § 38.401 No 370 et 5.1191(1) seq.]), providing [Stat Ann 1961Rev et in counties, certain section civil service preference 1 of the 1959, act was amended veterans’ Act if, provisions a conflict instance, there is between the county civil acts, those the said service prevail.” provision 1941 “shall No such is contained respect preference in the veterans’ act with townships. covering civil service act From this it legislature cognizant is evident that the was of the preference existence act when it enacted the civil service acts and well knew how to express repeal preference pro effect an of veterans’ visions in favor how civil service act by express former, to cause the terms, to be superseded by Having the latter when it so desired. expressly county done this in the case of civil service amendment of the veterans’ act and having respect not done with incorporated having service, in the 1935 civil repealing parts service section 19 all acts or of acts in conflict and, therewith thereafter, repealed having that section it seems evident legislature that the has not intended that the vet part; erans’ act, in whole or in should be repealed by deemed the 1935 civil service act as applied townships. amended and This view support finds further in the fact section of9 the 1935 civil as amended, it is required that the civil service commission shall (Stat CL 1958 Rev 5.3359).—Reporter. Reports. the fire and
“keep
members of
a roster
mil-
together
department,
service,
a record
Certainly
itary
experience.”
con-
naval
express.
As
not
noted
defendants
tended
appears
legislative
to have been
intent
above, the
*6
contrary.
urge
implication
repeal by
?
as defendants
Is there
permitted
by implication
“Repeal
if it can
not
by any
construction
be
reasonable
avoided
Michigan
Telephone Co.,
Bell
Couvelis v.
statutes.
People
Hanrahan,
Mich 611
75
223;
281 Mich
v.
(4
by any
751).
construction
LRA
If
reasonable
purpose found
a
reconciled and
2 statutes can be
to be
stand,
must
both
each,
served
Garfield
Township
Co.,
31;
219 Mich
A. Klise Lumber
v. B.
People
General,
639;
161 Mich
Auditor
Edwards v.
v.
duty of the courts
Harrison, 194 Mich
The
363.
possible
enforce
if
and to
reconcile statutes
Board
is to
State Prison
them,
Control of
of
The courts will
General,
Auditor
duty to reconcile the stat- possible, if and to enforce them. requires already civil service observed,
As keep policemen to a roster of the commission gether military expe a record of their or naval purpose could no other than for rience. This serve appointment, granting preference veterans for system. promotion tenure, under prefer time, At section l 2 of the veterans’ the same appointee thereunder, ence act that aln aside him a veteran, from the due shall “possess requisite qualifications, after other credit allowed civil service laws.” irreconcilability effectively Claims seem refuted *7 by provisions these 2 the acts. say 11(b) that
Defendants sections particularly language section of the civil rights service act3 are flat contradiction of the by plaintiff pref contended for under the veterans’ provided act, erence appointment inasmuch as it is there that by any shall not be in manner or prescribed. other than means Again in the civil service possible, it is to be observed that it is without making appointments conflict between the 2 acts, by under the civil service accord, service preference required commission rule, the under preference act. Section 14 of the civil ** * service act that “tenure under the 1961 Rev § 5.3364, 5.3357).—Reporter. CLS CL 4.1221).—Reporter. §§ 35.401, 38.511, 38.514, amended t>y (Stat 1958 Rev No (Stat §§ 5.3361, Ann Michigan Reports. can terminated the civil of this act” that There can be no donbt commission.
service rights plaintiff’s earned theretofore his an that have come to end commission under say right mean to that his action. That does not rights employment, con- without continued benefit in connection with his ferred the civil service act subject previous may to the not still be service, boa,rd vet- determination of the under the erans’ act. The civil service commission’s plaintiff’s rights enjoyed termination of theretofore under the civil service act would not neces- earned sarily townshiji holding in conflict with board previous job to remain in his he entitled under the veterans’ act. Future civil rights subject service act would still be to commis- sion determination. point
Defendants to the statement in the title of purposes 1935 civil that 1 service act of its was repeal to no all acts inconsistent therewith. This was title to
doubt included containing accommodate section already repealing language. such As repealed by stated, that section PA 1945, was purpose language 267. The and effect of the noted in the title must be deemed to have fallen argu- of that section. so, Even defendants’ begs question, ment which still must be, regard question connection, it is in to the repeal by implication, whether there is incon- sistency between the 2 acts. We conclude there is not. People Buckley, supra, cite
Defendants plaintiff participate effect that service commission could not in the civil
hearing and thereafter claim the right of a before the In the board. *8 Bucldey Case defendant the submitted to criminal judge assigned, trial providing a before circuit under a statute assignment, for such to the recorder’s Twp. Supervisor. urged- After conviction defendant Detroit.' court jurisdiction because without had been court that the implica- repealed assignment had been statute provi- making different statute later another, tion judges assignment to the traffic sions Appro- recorder’s court. division ordinance holding was the priate in that case to the situation by the court to trial not submit could that defendant challenge power of the conviction, after and, place trial in a a new thereof and demand court inapt here. Plain- It is constituted. court otherwise power jurisdiction challenge tiff does not did, it here do what commission to the civil service namely, rights under terminate his rights under other substantive But claims preference act. he he claims these, act. As to hearing provided, right, therein township been think it should have board. We accorded him. petition for writ of mandamus
Plaintiff’s prayer manda- in his filed here seek for relief brief compel job. to his While mus to his reinstatement provide that the act does days township hearing within board shall hold employee protest files a of his dis- after the veteran failing charge, it does not automatically position. employee is reinstated his precede hearing He The must such reinstatement. hearing board. not had the before the has right entitled to it. His reinstatement He is dependent on the decision of that board. of a writ
Beversed. Cause remanded issue requiring the defendant mandamus provided. board to conduct the as herein party having prevailed neither in full. costs, J., Carr, Kavanagh, C. and Kelly, Black, Smith, - n concurred with JJ., J. O’Hara, Dethmers, *9 Michigan Reports. Forty years ago (dissenting). Mr. J. Souris, Koeper Railway Detroit in v. Street Justice Wiest, 487, 222 Mich observed vet- Commission, 464, always preference acts “have been accorded erans’ by the tender consideration appropriate courts.” However may legislative in such consideration judicial may take notice of its while we halls and performance judi- of own in our exercise there, upon to the con- called measure cial function when tinuing vitality uni- of such an act standards versally slip applicable, we not should let Justitia’s blindfold. allegedly us 2 inconsistent stat have before
We irreconcilably only the inconsistent, If indeed utes. last enacted statute
may apply in the circumstances judicial inconsistency, by implication — legislative lan of the first enacted statute absent Reynolds, guage express repeal. In Estate re 360; Corrections 354, 274 Mich Commission, Jackson v. 356; 313 Mich Washtenaw 352, County Commissioners v. Public Com Road Service mission, Mich 663. 205,1
I read PA No 1897, cannot 78,2 applicable municipal currently certain fire and to departments, as does Mr. Justice Dethmers. objectives express are, Their and their in my therefore, conflict I view, and, irreconcilable villages, munic cities, would hold that ipalities those adopted whose electors have referendum **provides, 17a3 the act its section longer preference act no earlier enacted veterans’ applicable. legislative debate Absent a record determining or other what was intended aid (Stat seq., CL et Ann 1961 Rev 4.1221 35.401 amended § seq.). et (Stat et Ann 1958 Rev 5.3351 CL seq.). et (Stat 5.3368). 3 CLS 38.517a Ann 1958 Rev § Twp. Supervisor. Redeord legislature to we are limited consideration language language statutory alone. That of the falls far short legislative expressing me make of the act of 1935 from we can intent which comprehensive something than the less governmental purports units which those it have provisions. adopt its elected passage its *10 of act of and amend- Before policemen by of and PA firemen ment employed, appointed, governmental units were such removed, every depart- transferred, as in other and municipal State, other counties, and ment of granted subject corporations, preferences Honorably discharged No 205. veterans required by of the first section veterans were “preferred appointment employ- and act for to be they By that act were section of ment.” the second preferential granted benefits not accorded additional prohibition employees legislative nonveteran suspension, except against or their transfer removal, or wilful for serious misconduct, habitual, “official duty, neglect performance convic- extortion, in the of felony, or incom- intoxication, tion of petency,” conviction of due notice a full after and governing designated of the unit elected officials prior suspended, if or transferred or, removed, hearing, hearing had to be held such notice and protest days aggrieved 30 of the veteran’s within against such action.
By 1935 civil service enactment any whereby city, legislature procedures authorized village, municipality employing full-time fire or or
police departments,
desired,
electors
could
whose
improve
high quality
performance
and maintain a
departments by requiring
publicly
in such
vital
applicants
promotions
appointments
of mem-
and
solely by
relative"
their
bers to be made
reference
comparative
as determined
and fitness
371
Reports.
n uniformexaminations. Sections
and
(CLS
§§
[Stat
38.511,
act of
5.3362]).
§§
Rev
At
5.3361,
1958
this
the same time,
legislation
to all
extended
members of the fire
departments
villages,
of such cities,
protection
municipalities,
against political
per
superiors.
sonal
or discrimination
their
County Prosecuting Attorney,
Wayne
ex rel. Tax
payers, City Highland Park, Mich 425, 434;
v.
Royal
Manager,
City
Winter v.
When of the 2 equally equally their conflicts acts, are obvious and example, pro- irreconcilable. For act earlier preferred appoint- vides ment and veterans “shall employment” (section 1), whereas section provides: later ap- after “On and date this takes effect, pointments promotions paid to and in all fire and/or *11 police departments ties of villages municipali- of cities, or any population whatsoever shall be made only according qualifications fitness to and ascertained examinations, which shall be com- petitive, person appointed, and no shall be reinstated, promoted paid discharged or aas member of said departments regardless position, any of rank or in police department city, any village fire or municipality of or Michigan, in the of in State manner by any prescribed or means than other those in this (Stat act.” CLS 38.507 Ann 1958 1956, Rev 5.3357). provisions Other and later sections legislative make it as certain inventive- given ness can make it no over 151 Twp. Supervisor. Redeord (section ) excepting only fitness and 104 formerly applicant served who has an favor of such, years department and who, than 10 for more resigned years, preceding there 2 no has within charges or of misconduct at a time when from pending. misfeasance were other pref provisions of the veterans’ Furthermore, suspen 2) prohibiting (section removal, erence except for stated causes transfer of veterans sion or and comparable hearing, providing are inconsistent for a (section ) later civil of the apply nonveterans as well act which specify for removal causes veterans, different entirely disciplinary differ an and action, upon hearing, different officers, ent different 2a section Moreover, and different times. notice, at permits preference act6 reductions of the veterans’ seniority only service, not force on the basis quality as deter but also “on the of service basis authority, having employing and those mined the seniority quality shall of service least least apparently be first without removed”, veterans, whereas section strictly
requires “in numerical such removals to be appointed commencing order last man with the police department.” fire or conflicts other, as well as irreconcilable
These, objectives specific provisions 2 acts of the rationally my they compel cannot conclusion that simultaneously legis- applied be lative absence expressly stating language not relieve does obligation Nor does us in case so to rule. express legislative language the absence of compel construing our in such strained acts porter. 1958 Rev § 6 CLS CL CLS 5.3360).—Reporter. 38.510, 35.402a (Stat Ann (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 1961 Rev § 5.3364) .—Reporter. *12 4.1222[1]).—Re- (Stat Michigan Reports. commissions authorized
fashion that the civil service by power are denied the to determine the later act employment rights “original retention” when legislature’s involved, veterans are the face apodictic purpose granting commissions authority appointments, promotions, exclusive over disciplinary against discharges, and lesser actions policemen villages, firemen and and munic- cities, ipalities electing adopt legis- If it the act. be lative will to of veterans in to in authorize systems public employment required otherwise legislature on merit, based can so express establishing terms and the the standards preference may methods which such accom- plished. yet It has not done so. public question
I would but without affirm, costs, being involved.