Emerson R. Boyles

The case involved a sewer contractor who sued the City of Adrian for damages after encountering unexpected quicksand and excessive water during construction of a municipal sewer project, conditions the city allegedly knew about from prior projects but failed to disclose in the plans and specifications provided to bidders. The city filed a cross-claim seeking damages for the contractor's alleged delays and incomplete work. After a jury trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff $115,741.15 on his claim, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence for the jury to find the city had misrepresented subsoil conditions and that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the misleading specifications in submitting his bid.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case arose from two successive automobile collisions on a foggy highway in 1946, where the plaintiffs' eastbound vehicle was first struck head-on by defendant Caswell driving in the wrong lane while attempting to pass trucks, then struck again seconds later by defendant Holt traveling in the same direction who could not stop in time. The trial court found both defendants negligent, held the plaintiffs free of contributory negligence, and entered judgments for damages against Caswell and Holt jointly and severally. On appeal by Holt, the court affirmed, ruling that Holt's excessive speed in fog constituted negligence that was a proximate cause of the injuries and that the harms from the collisions were indivisible. The core reasoning was that the evidence supported the trial court's factual findings on negligence and proximate cause, and that successive negligent acts producing a single indivisible injury support joint and several liability.

torts & liability

The case involved Margaret Jordan, who was charged with first-degree murder after her car struck and killed Lenwood Stowe following an altercation and her decision to return to check on him. A jury convicted her of manslaughter. On appeal, she argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on negligent homicide as a lesser included offense under the relevant statute. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the statute permitting a negligent homicide verdict applies only when the defendant is charged with manslaughter committed in the operation of a vehicle, not when charged with murder.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a jury trial awarding damages to plaintiffs Mary and Warren Clowe after their car collided with defendant Margaret Paton's vehicle at the intersection of two narrow gravel roads in Clinton County. The defendant appealed the verdicts, arguing that the plaintiff driver was contributorily negligent as a matter of law and that the verdicts were against the great weight of the evidence. The court affirmed the judgments, holding that the conflicting testimony on visibility, stopping, and entry into the intersection must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and that credibility determinations were properly left to the jury. It concluded that the record did not establish contributory negligence as a matter of law nor show the verdicts to be against the great weight of the evidence.

torts & liability

This case was a bastardy proceeding in which the defendant was charged with being the father of a child born out of wedlock based on the mother's complaint. A jury found the defendant guilty, but he appealed on grounds that the trial court's jury instructions contained prejudicial errors about the legal consequences of a guilty verdict and the applicable substantive law. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the instructions wrongly described the parents as each liable for 50% of the child's support in violation of the governing statute and improperly invited the jury to consider matters beyond its limited role of deciding paternity. Other claimed errors in the charge were deemed unlikely to recur.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved homeowners in a platted subdivision who sued to enjoin neighboring lot owners from constructing a tool-and-die manufacturing building, based on recorded 1942 deed restrictions limiting the lots to private residential use only. The defendants had obtained a municipal zoning permit authorizing industrial construction, but the trial court entered a decree enforcing the restrictions and barring the proposed use. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the zoning ordinance did not cancel or override the private restrictions, that the plaintiffs had relied on them when acquiring their properties, and that enforcement remained equitable given the absence of abandonment, laches, or inequitable neighborhood changes.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved 129 employees of Michigan Tool Co. who sought unemployment compensation benefits after their plant was closed in July 1953 during contract negotiations with their union, following the employer's claim of a production slowdown. The Employment Security Commission initially denied benefits, but the hearing referee and appeal board awarded them, finding no proven labor dispute causing the stoppage; the circuit court reversed this, but the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated the appeal board's decision. The court reasoned that the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence of a slowdown—relying only on shipment values rather than detailed production data—and thus did not meet its burden to prove disqualification under the statute barring benefits for unemployment due to a labor dispute. The appeal board's factual findings were not against the great weight of the evidence.

labor & employment

This case involved property owners challenging a city zoning ordinance that restricted their approximately 9-acre triangular parcel, isolated by a railroad right-of-way and surrounded by industrial, multi-family, and commercial uses, to single-family residential purposes only. The owners sought to have the land rezoned for business uses permitted under the ordinance's Business A district, arguing the restriction was unreasonable given the property's location and surroundings. The trial court granted a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the residential zoning limit, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed after a de novo review. The court agreed that the ordinance's application to this parcel was unreasonable and confiscatory, bore no reasonable relation to public health, safety, or welfare, and that business use aligned with planning needs like a needed shopping center without increasing density concerns. The decision emphasized case-specific facts over general zoning precedents and rejected claims that judicial relief improperly usurped legislative rezoning authority.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs Robert and May Irene Weeks suing defendant Hyatt for damages from injuries sustained in an automobile accident while traveling to a family reunion. The jury returned verdicts awarding $6,000 to Robert and $4,000 to May Irene after finding the defendant negligent in operating the vehicle. The defendant appealed, contending that the plaintiffs were guest passengers under Michigan's guest passenger statute, that the verdicts were against the great weight of the evidence on issues of negligence and passenger status, that the court erred in refusing to submit certain special questions to the jury, and that the verdicts were excessive. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, concluding there was substantial evidence supporting the jury's determinations regarding the parties' relationship, the defendant's negligence, and the damages awarded.

torts & liability

This case was a wrongful death action under Michigan's death act brought by the administratrix of Thomas Hett's estate against the owner and driver of a southbound car that struck and killed him on a Detroit boulevard. After a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of no cause of action. The court held that the decedent was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, based on pleadings and pretrial admissions that he did not see the defendants' approaching car, which was in plain sight for over 400 feet after another vehicle passed, and that he therefore failed to maintain a reasonable lookout before crossing the lane.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Dillon v. Yankee, plaintiffs sought to rescind their purchase of a launderette business from the defendant, claiming they were induced by misrepresentations and fraud regarding income, machinery condition, customers, and expenses, and requested cancellation of the promissory note and chattel mortgage along with return of payments. The trial court granted rescission after finding sufficient evidence of fraud, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. The court reviewed the case de novo but upheld the decree, noting that the trial court's findings on witness credibility and the evidence of falsified records and misrepresentations supported the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a workers' compensation award granting the plaintiff 750 weeks of benefits for permanent and total disability caused by inhaling coke gas at work in 1943, which resulted in insanity. The facts of the injury and its work-related nature were undisputed, leaving only the question of whether the compensation period should be limited to 500 weeks under the applicable statutes. The court held that section 9 of the workers' compensation act, as it existed at the time of the injury, expressly provided for payment over 750 weeks in cases of permanent and total disability, and that section 10's schedule of specific injuries did not restrict this provision. The statutes were found to be plain and unambiguous on this point, so the commission's award was affirmed without reference to later amendments.

labor & employment

The case involved a corporate plaintiff that owned two parcels of industrial property in Muskegon Township, including oil refining facilities and storage tanks, and that challenged the township's 1954 tax assessments after protesting them before the local board of review and the State tax commission. The plaintiff alleged that the assessing officer had used a formula producing an overall valuation exceeding true cash value while systematically assessing residential property at only 45 percent of true cash value, and it paid the taxes under protest before suing to recover the amounts. After a jury trial, the trial court directed a verdict for the township, finding no disputed factual issue, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that, absent any allegation or proof of fraud, the State tax commission's valuation determinations are final and conclusive, and that mere errors of judgment or overvaluation do not justify judicial interference with assessments. The evidence did not establish that the plaintiff's property was assessed on a different basis than other property in the township or that the assessments were arbitrary or capricious.

taxesproperty

The case involved a plaintiff seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the attorney general, secretary of state, director of elections, and board of state canvassers to approve the form of a petition (Exhibit A) for circulating signatures to propose a constitutional amendment on garnishment. The defendants had refused, arguing no duty existed to approve petition forms until after circulation and filing for signature verification. The court held that the Michigan Constitution (1908), art 17, § 2, as amended, imposes a clear legal duty on the secretary of state or board of state canvassers to designate or prescribe the form of initiative petitions and their headings when requested, to be performed timely before submission to electors, but found no such duty on the attorney general or director of elections and rejected certain conflicting statutory provisions as unconstitutional. Mandamus was issued only against the secretary of state or board of state canvassers to fulfill that duty.

elections

The case involved a quo warranto action by plaintiff Cicotte challenging defendant Damron's right to hold the newly created position of 'inspector' (second in command) in the Ecorse police department after the police and fire commission abolished the assistant chief position that Cicotte had held and transferred him to lieutenant. The circuit court ousted Damron from the inspector role, but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the commission had authority under the city charter to abolish the assistant chief office, create the inspector position with altered duties and rank, and appoint Damron. The charter granted the commission general control and management of the police department, including power to adopt rules for organization, ranks, and conduct. The court found no legal basis to question the commission's motives or require a hearing, as the plaintiff's office was lawfully terminated rather than involving disciplinary charges.

labor & employment

The case concerned a challenge by the Communist Party of Michigan and two individuals to sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Michigan Communist Control Law (Trucks Act), which defined "communists" and "communist-front organizations," required annual registration with the state police including fingerprints and member lists, and barred communists from appearing on primary or general election ballots; the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the provisions were unconstitutional and an injunction against their enforcement by state officers. The court held that the challenged sections could not be enforced. Its core reasoning was that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania v. Nelson established that Congress had occupied the field of sedition against the United States via the Smith Act, preempting parallel state legislation such as the Trucks Act provisions at issue, which were materially similar to the Pennsylvania statute struck down in that case.

criminal lawfederal power

In Knowles v. National Bank of Detroit, the plaintiff executor sought a decree requiring the trustee of four inter vivos trusts to contribute a prorated share of federal estate taxes, deficiencies, penalties, and interest attributable to those trusts, which were includable in the decedent's taxable estate due to retained powers of amendment. The trial court dismissed the bill after interpreting the will, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that, absent a Michigan proration statute, the language in paragraph 6 of the will directing payment of all taxes assessable against the estate before distribution of the residue to the grandson reflected the testatrix's intent that the residuary estate bear the full tax burden. Relying on precedent such as Moorman v. Moorman, the court concluded that the burden falls on the residue without statutory direction or contrary will provision.

taxesproperty

The case involved a lawsuit arising from a collision between two automobiles at an intersection in Lansing, where one driver faced a flashing red light and the other a flashing yellow light. The jury returned a verdict of no cause for action in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that there was no evidence of contributory negligence by the plaintiff driver and that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. The court affirmed, concluding that conflicts in testimony regarding the speeds of both vehicles, whether the defendant stopped for the red light, and the plaintiff driver's decision to proceed into the intersection after observing the defendant's approach created factual questions properly submitted to the jury on the issues of negligence and contributory negligence. The court also found no reversible error in the trial court's handling of testimony about a traffic ticket or its instructions to the jury.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether a 35-foot strip of land in Cedarville, Michigan, constituted a public street that the plaintiffs could use to access their lakeside property. The circuit court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the strip had been dedicated as a public way through a recorded plat, and issued an injunction preventing the defendants from blocking access. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the original plat dedicated the strip as a public street, the defendants as successors in interest could not interfere with that dedication, and equity jurisdiction was appropriate despite arguments about legal remedies. The court reasoned that the plat's designation, prior representations by the common grantor, and the intent evident on the plat established the public right of way.

property

The case concerned whether Rebecca Cohen, who retouched photographic negatives at home for the Powell Studios on a piecework basis of $1 per negative, was an employee under the Michigan employment security act or an independent contractor. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Employment Security Commission's rulings that Cohen was an employee. Applying an economic reality test rather than common-law control standards, the court reasoned that her work formed an integral part of the studio's portrait business, contributed to its common objectives, and followed the usual path of employment, even though she worked off-site with her own tools and flexible hours.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory