Edward M. Sharpe

This case is a habeas corpus proceeding in which father Gordon Harmsen, after being restored to mental competency in 1955, sought return of two of his children who had been placed in the custody of others following probate court proceedings initiated by their mother in 1954. The probate court had taken jurisdiction over the children, placed them with the defendants, and later denied the father's petition for restoration of custody; the circuit court granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the children returned to the father. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the writ should have been dismissed because the juvenile division of the probate court holds original and exclusive jurisdiction over such matters and no appealable order had been entered there. The court reasoned that the father's fitness and the children's welfare must be determined through proper probate court proceedings and appeals under the juvenile code, rather than by habeas corpus, and that the changed circumstances did not automatically terminate the probate court's authority.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a negligence lawsuit brought by an elderly schoolteacher who was struck by a car while crossing a street near a school that had just dismissed for the day. The trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendant driver after a jury found for the plaintiff, ruling that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to continue watching for traffic. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the question of contributory negligence was for the jury because the plaintiff was entitled to assume the driver would exercise special vigilance and control in the congested school-area conditions, including maintaining a proper lookout, reducing speed, and warning pedestrians. The court reasoned that the driver's heightened duties in the described circumstances meant the plaintiff's initial observation of clear traffic to one side did not establish contributory negligence as a matter of law.

torts & liability

This case involved two separate lawsuits arising from a minor's injury by a train on the defendant railroad's tracks: one by the father seeking recovery of medical expenses and one by the mother as next friend seeking damages for the son's personal injuries. The trial court consolidated the actions for trial over the plaintiffs' later objections, instructed the jury to return separate verdicts if warranted, and the jury found no cause of action for either plaintiff. After the verdicts, the plaintiffs sought to extend the time to file motions for new trial, but the trial court denied the extension and the motions. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that consolidation was within the trial court's discretion under the statute because it promoted the convenient administration of justice and did not mislead the jury, and that there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to extend the filing deadline for new-trial motions.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a claim by plaintiff Thomas F. Wall for breach of an employment contract with defendant Lunn Laminates, Inc., seeking unpaid commissions on a subcontract and later prime contract to manufacture plastic bodies for the Chevrolet Corvette. The contract, effective March 23, 1953, for an initial six-month period, provided for salary, expenses, and a bonus based on gross business written, capped at an annual rate of $15,000. After the contract term ended and plaintiff was discharged in October 1953, defendant obtained a prime contract from Chevrolet in December 1953 following negotiations that continued without plaintiff's involvement. The court reversed the jury's verdict for plaintiff and directed a verdict for defendant, reasoning that plaintiff's proofs failed to show he was the procuring cause of the contract and that the order was not "business written" under the terms of the employment agreement, which was no longer in effect.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved employees at Knight-Morley Corp. who walked off their shifts in a factory buffing room after a malfunctioning exhaust fan left the air dusty and unsafe; the employer treated their departure as a voluntary quit and denied unemployment benefits under the Michigan employment security act. An appeal board found the workers eligible for benefits, but the circuit court reversed, concluding they had left without good cause and used the ventilation issue as a pretext. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the circuit court, holding that the hazardous working conditions provided good cause for leaving and did not constitute misconduct or a voluntary quit without justification under the statute. The court reasoned that the employees faced immediate health risks from the faulty system and that the specific labor-dispute provisions did not apply given the safety concerns.

labor & employment

This case concerned the authority of a city zoning board of appeals to grant a rehearing of its decision after the statutory five-day period for finality had expired. The board initially granted a variance allowing a building permit, but seven days later, at the city's request, it reheard the matter and denied the permit. The trial court quashed the rehearing order as void and reinstated the original variance. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither the enabling statute nor the local ordinance authorized rehearings, the decision became final after five days absent fraud or mistake, and zoning boards lack the inherent powers of courts to reconsider their rulings.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a subrogation action by an insurance company against a truck owner and driver following a collision where the insured's vehicle, traveling at 50-55 mph, struck a truck entering the highway from a driveway in an unincorporated area called Carlisle. The trial court determined that the area qualified as a residence district under the statutory definition, making the insured's speed excessive and constituting contributory negligence that barred recovery. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that whether an area is residential is a factual question supported by evidence of multiple dwellings within 300 feet, including surrounding grounds, and that the trial court's finding was not against the preponderance of evidence.

torts & liability

This case concerned a real estate broker's claim for a commission after homeowners withdrew their property from sale. The owners had listed their home with the broker for six months at $11,000, agreeing to pay a 10% commission if sold within that period or shortly after to a contacted buyer. The broker obtained an offer of $9,500, which the owners rejected before notifying the broker in good faith that they were withdrawing the property due to family needs; the owners never sold the home. The broker later secured a buyer at the full $11,000 price, but the trial court ruled against the broker, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the listing was revocable in good faith before the broker produced a ready, willing, and able purchaser on the owners' terms, as the agreement lacked independent consideration and was treated as an offer that could be withdrawn prior to performance.

property

This case involves a challenge by property owners to a 1954 zoning ordinance (No. 69) in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, that reclassified their 30.2-acre parcel fronting Woodward Avenue for single-family residences on minimum 2-acre lots, after an earlier ordinance had allowed multiple dwellings on the frontage. The owners sought to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance, arguing it was unreasonable given the property's location on a major highway and its higher value for commercial use. The trial court dismissed the bill, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the land could practicably be subdivided into large residential sites consistent with the surrounding high-end residential character of the city, which had no commercial development along Woodward Avenue outside a central area, and that the ordinance did not deprive the owners of all reasonable use of the property.

property

The case concerned consolidated personal injury actions arising from a collision in Flint, Michigan, between Clifford Moore's automobile and a tractor driven by Wesley Palmer, who had leased the tractor to Wiederhold Freight Lines under an agreement that assigned control and liability to the partnership. Palmer was returning home after detaching a loaded trailer as part of a freight run, and the dispute centered on whether Wiederhold consented to Palmer's use of the disconnected tractor for that purpose and could therefore be held vicariously liable for his negligence. The court emphasized that liability turned on factual questions of consent and scope of permitted use, instructing the jury to determine whether Palmer's travel was reasonably within the terms of the lease and employment relationship; verdicts against the defendants were upheld where the evidence supported such findings.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over Livonia's zoning ordinance No. 60, specifically whether defendant David Lewis could subdivide land in an R-U-F (rural-urban farm) district into lots smaller than the half-acre minimum required by section 8.04. Plaintiffs, neighboring property owners and civic associations, sought to enjoin the subdivision, arguing the ordinance's language allowing smaller parcels to comply with R-1 district rules applied only to preexisting lots. The trial court dismissed the complaint, interpreting the ordinance to permit R-1 compliant lots (minimum 7,200 square feet and 60 feet width) in R-U-F districts without rezoning. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the provision was not limited to prior subdivisions and was consistent with the ordinance's structure distinguishing uses across districts.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case was a landlord-tenant dispute in which the plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of a five-year commercial lease covenant requiring the tenant to keep the premises in good repair and return them in similar condition, excluding ordinary wear and tear. After the defendant vacated the first floor of the building but continued paying rent, the plaintiffs alleged damage beyond normal use, including rotted floors, loosened plaster from steam pipes, and plumbing issues. The trial court awarded the plaintiffs $1,634.50 in damages based on evidence of repair costs. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the award fell within the range of competent evidence on reasonable restoration expenses and that factual determinations on damages should stand absent clear error.

property

The case involved plaintiffs, lot owners in the Edgewood Park subdivision on Straits Lake, seeking to enjoin defendants, owners of inland lots in the newly platted Golfview Addition No. 1 carved from outlot A, from using lot 1 of Edgewood Park as access for boating, swimming, and mooring boats. The restrictions recorded in 1944 limited lots to single private residences and prohibited more than one residence per building site. The trial court granted an injunction barring such lake access uses and limiting the lot to single-residence purposes, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the defendants' uses breached the restrictions because they did not qualify as residence purposes under precedents like Bohm v. Rogoff. It also rejected the defense of laches, finding that plaintiffs acted with reasonable promptness once violations appeared permanent rather than temporary.

property

This case involved a contract dispute between General Motors and Enterprise Heat & Power Co. over the installation of an underground fuel storage network. GM overpaid the contractor by $9,465 after both parties miscalculated the revised contract price based on an exhibit that detailed credits and additions for meter installations, resulting in a net reduction that was not properly applied. The trial court awarded GM the overpayment amount with interest, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that money paid under a mutual mistake of material fact is recoverable, even with negligence by the paying party, provided the recipient has not changed position in a way that would make repayment inequitable, and no such prejudice was shown here.

business & regulatory

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by employee Bertha Ida Leenknegt against McCormick Industries for an alleged injury in 1950, for which the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board awarded benefits after finding the injury occurred on September 2, 1950. Defendants appealed, challenging the evidence supporting the injury date, notice, and other findings, but the Michigan Supreme Court limited the scope of review to whether the employer was subject to the Workers' Compensation Act and whether Travelers Insurance Company was on the risk at the time. The court affirmed the award, determining based on a supplemental record that McCormick Industries employed four or more persons and that the insurance policy issued in 1947 remained in effect through 1952, covering the date of injury.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a petition to incorporate the village of Wayne into the city of Wayne, which county officials including the prosecutor and bureau of taxation reviewed and found compliant with the requirements of PA 1909, No 279, as amended. The board of supervisors' ways and means committee recommended against proceeding based on concerns such as divided land parcels, tax assessment difficulties, and impacts on municipal services, leading the board to refuse calling an election on the matter. Plaintiff Attwood sought a writ of mandamus in circuit court to compel the board to place the incorporation question on the ballot. The trial court granted the writ, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the board's authority is limited to ministerial verification that the petition conforms to the statute and its statements are true, after which it must order an election, with no power to evaluate the merits or reasonableness of the proposal.

electionsprocedure

The case involved consolidated claims by Clara Corbin and her husband against Yellow Cab Company for personal injuries and property damages from a September 1953 rear-end collision in Battle Creek, Michigan, where the taxi struck the plaintiffs' stopped car after the driver was briefly blinded by sweat. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial based on challenges to the jury instructions. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that instructions on the plaintiff's burden to prove freedom from contributory negligence, the assured clear distance rule, and the statutory prima facie negligence presumption from a rear-end collision were accurate or cured by other charges, with no evidence of contributory negligence by the plaintiff and the rear-end collision being an admitted fact.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a claim by Clara Scharmer for benefits under her late husband Frederick's group life insurance policy issued by Occidental Life Insurance Company through his union, which paid $3,000 for death from bodily injury effected solely through external, violent, and accidental means independent of other causes but excluded deaths resulting directly or indirectly from disease or bodily infirmity. Frederick Scharmer, age 64, died from a coronary occlusion after chest pains that may have been triggered by lifting a manhole cover at work, but medical evidence established he had pre-existing arteriosclerosis that was a prerequisite and contributing factor to the heart attack, with death attributed to natural causes. The Michigan Supreme Court held there was no coverage because the policy required the accident to be the sole cause and the disease was a contributing factor, reversing the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff and directing entry of judgment for the insurer.

business & regulatory

The case involved defendant Daniel William Stanley, who was charged under Michigan penal code section 413 for willfully taking possession of and driving away a 1950 Pontiac automobile from a used-car lot without the owner's permission. At trial, the court refused the defense request to instruct the jury that an intent to steal the vehicle was required for conviction, and the jury found Stanley guilty. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property is not an element of the offense. The court reasoned that the statute was enacted precisely to address situations like joyriding where a vehicle is taken without authority but without the intent to steal required for larceny under a separate provision. It emphasized that the offense is complete upon willful unauthorized taking and driving away, as previously interpreted in People v. Smith.

criminal law

The case concerned whether a life insurance policy applied for by U.S. Air Force Captain Joseph Wadsworth was in effect at the time of his death in a plane crash on April 1, 1951, entitling his widow Bernice Wadsworth to benefits from New York Life Insurance Company. Wadsworth had completed an application, paid the initial premium, and passed a medical exam while on leave, but the insurer later issued the policy with an added aviation clause requiring his signature on an amendment, which he never received or signed before his death. The court held that the contractual language on the effective date of coverage was ambiguous, that parol evidence of the parties' understanding should have been admitted at trial, and therefore vacated the judgment for the insurer and remanded for a new trial.

business & regulatory