The case involved whether stock subscribed for but not yet paid up by the tax date could be considered paid-up capital or surplus for purposes of Michigan's annual corporate privilege tax. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that such stock does not qualify as paid-up capital or surplus under the statute. The court reasoned that the statute does not reasonably cover the transitional situation where a partnership is incorporating, that judicial construction should not alter the settled meanings of those terms, and that ambiguous revenue statutes must be construed against the taxing authority.
This case arose from a vote by members of Mayflower Congregational Church to affiliate with the newly formed United Church of Christ, prompting a class-action suit by the opposing minority who alleged that the merger would alter historic congregational autonomy over sacraments, ordination, and local affairs in violation of the church's founding principles and property dedication. The trial court dismissed the complaint on summary judgment, holding that two earlier New York class-action judgments on the same merger issues were res judicata and bound the plaintiffs here. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reviewed whether the prior representations adequately covered the plaintiffs' claims and whether equitable procedures had been properly followed before final disposition. The court concluded that the motion to dismiss was deficient, reversed the lower courts, and remanded for a full hearing on the merits rather than summary resolution.
The case concerned two defendants separately charged with assault with intent to rob while armed arising from the same 1958 tavern robbery. The trial court granted the prosecution's motion to consolidate the cases for a single trial and later denied a motion for mistrial after an assistant prosecutor had a brief, non-substantive conversation with two jurors about the expected length of the proceedings. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that consolidation was authorized when the offenses involved the same transaction and identical witnesses, and that the limited juror exchange created no prejudice requiring a new trial.
This case involved Michigan-based ground employees of Northwest Airlines who were laid off due to a strike by flight engineers based elsewhere but part of the airline's system. The employees sought unemployment benefits under the Michigan employment security act, but the commission initially denied them, finding the unemployment resulted from a labor dispute in the same establishment. The appeal board granted benefits, but the circuit court reversed, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the entire airline operation constituted a single systemwide establishment, so the strike disqualified the claimants. The court also noted that some claimants, through their union, helped finance the strike via a strike fund, providing an additional basis for disqualification under the act.
This case involved a workers' compensation claim filed by the widow and children of a copper company employee who suffered a fatal heart attack while lifting ingots on the job in 1956. The claim was not filed until 1963, prompting the employer to argue it was barred by a six-year limitations period under prior precedent. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the employer's failure to notify the workmen's compensation department of the disputed cause of death, as required by departmental Rule 3, tolled the limitations period. The Court also overruled earlier decisions imposing a six-year limit on recoverable benefits and determined that the death arose out of and in the course of employment, entitling the dependents to compensation from the date of death.
This case was a lawsuit by Fenestra Inc. against Gulf American Land Corp., its subsidiary, a stock seller group, and related parties, alleging a conspiracy to acquire a 46% controlling interest in Fenestra to exploit the company's substantial liquid assets for Gulf's benefit in its land development business. The trial court granted injunctive relief barring Gulf from voting the shares, ordered divestiture of the stock, and removed four directors installed by the defendants, while denying monetary damages; all parties appealed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the record showed no proof of an unlawful purpose by the Gulf group or imminent irreparable injury, and that courts may not intervene in lawful purchases of control in publicly held corporations based on suspicions alone.
