Otis M. Smith

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

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.

religious libertypropertyprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employment

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

The case involved a property owner who challenged a 1959 zoning ordinance that designated her land in Southfield, Michigan, as residential, despite its prior commercial use since 1941 creating a nonconforming use. After being denied a building permit for alterations, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the ordinance was void as applied to a 2.4-acre portion of her property. The trial court ruled in her favor, finding the property best suited for commercial use like a shopping center with no detriment to surrounding residential areas, and that residential zoning would reduce its value by more than 50 percent. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance failed to meet the test of reasonableness under police power because it bore no direct relation to public health, safety, morals, or welfare when applied to this parcel. The court emphasized the substantial diminution in value and the lack of adverse effects from commercial use.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff alleged that in 1940 the defendant physician removed her right fallopian tube and ovary without consent during an appendectomy, and she sought damages for resulting infertility after a 1959 surgery removed her remaining tube. The trial court instructed the jury that plaintiff's inability to bear children was not a proximate result of the 1940 procedure and barred argument or instructions on that element of damages, leading to a $7,500 verdict limited to loss of the reserve tube. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a tortfeasor is liable only for injuries that are the legal and natural consequences of the wrongful act and might reasonably have been anticipated, and that the later independent surgery was an intervening cause not proximately connected to the original act. The court reasoned that a woman with one fallopian tube remains fertile, so the 1940 loss alone caused no substantial harm and the 1959 event was too remote and unforeseeable to support additional damages.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerned a 1956 grade-crossing collision in Gregory, Michigan, between a Grand Trunk Western train and the plaintiff's truck; the plaintiff alleged negligence because the railroad failed to install additional warnings such as lights or gates despite obstructed sight lines and other conditions. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the defendant and remanded for a new trial, finding error in the jury instructions on the railroad's duty to provide crossing protection. The trial judge had improperly instructed the jury that the statutory crossbuck sign sufficed if the area was a business district and had removed from the jury the factual question whether ordinary care required extra safeguards under the circumstances. The court held that the common-law duty of reasonable prudence, as clarified in Emery v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, must be decided by the jury without being limited by “special conditions” terminology or the business-district classification.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned enforcement of a mechanic's lien on defendants' property under Michigan's mechanic's lien act, which requires proceedings to begin within one year after recording. Plaintiff filed its complaint within that period but did not serve defendants until several months later, prompting defendants to raise an affirmative defense based on the statute of limitations. The trial court struck the defense, and the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the tolling provisions of the general revised judicature act do not apply to the one-year limitation in the mechanic's lien statute, because that limit is a condition on the right created by the act itself rather than a general limitation on remedies, consistent with precedents such as Holland v. Eaton and Bement v. Grand Rapids & I.R. Co.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a claim for unemployment benefits by Della M. Morris, who took an approved leave of absence from Michigan Bell Telephone Co. for pregnancy from March 6, 1961, to March 5, 1962. After her child was born in April 1961, she sought to return to work in May but was told no positions were available, leading her to apply for benefits in July 1961. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision denying benefits, holding that the claimant did not qualify for the statutory exception to pregnancy-related disqualification under section 29(1)(d) of the Michigan employment security act because she applied for reinstatement before the leave ended, rather than at its termination as required. The court also noted that the appeal board's factual findings were contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The decision relied on precedent from a similar case interpreting the same provision.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute over whether John Losada, a laid-off Chrysler employee, was disqualified from unemployment benefits under Michigan's employment security act for refusing offered jobs as a spot welder or press operator that differed from his prior role and would affect his seniority. The referee found disqualification, the appeal board reversed that decision based on good cause, and the circuit court then reversed the board; the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and remanded. The court held that the statute requires an initial factual determination of whether offered work is suitable—using either the deemed-suitable standard for customary employment or consideration of factors like health, fitness, prior earnings, and prospects—before addressing whether refusal occurred without good cause, but neither lower agency had properly applied those criteria. Because findings of fact on suitability were absent, the court declined to decide the merits and ordered further proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether the three-year statute of limitations was tolled in a lawsuit arising from a June 1960 accident when the plaintiff filed the complaint on June 6, 1963, and attempted to deliver copies of the summons and complaint to the Midland County sheriff's office. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for accelerated judgment, but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute was not tolled under the relevant statute because the documents were not placed in the hands of an officer for immediate service in good faith. The court reasoned that after the undersheriff informed counsel the defendant resided in Genesee County and counsel left with the papers, the nearly three-week delay before delivering them to the correct sheriff meant the requirements for tolling were not met.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a property dispute between the same parties in two successive lawsuits, where the first decree contained an erroneous legal description of the land awarded to the plaintiff due to a mistake by counsel. Defendants raised res judicata as a defense to the second suit, which sought to correct the decree, but the court examined the trial record showing the error was acknowledged and the judge had initially intended to award the full property based on the evidence of adverse possession. The Michigan Supreme Court decided that both suits could be consolidated as one proceeding under GCR 1963, 865.1(7) and related authorities allowing correction of decrees, ordering the decree amended to accurately describe the property while preserving defendants' defenses for potential review.

propertyprocedure

The case involved defendant Ferguson, who was convicted by a jury of armed robbery after a pistol seized during a warrantless search of an apartment was admitted into evidence at his 1956 trial, along with testimony from an accomplice. Ferguson appealed the denial of his motion for a delayed new trial, arguing that the pistol should have been suppressed due to an illegal search and that the accomplice's testimony was tainted by the accomplice's alleged illegal detention. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the mid-trial motion to suppress because Ferguson failed to show special circumstances excusing the lack of a timely pretrial motion and bore the burden of proving he lacked prior knowledge of the relevant facts. On the second issue, the court found no record evidence of illegal detention of the accomplice or that any such detention was for extracting a confession, declining to extend prior precedent on involuntary confessions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a products liability action brought by a husband and wife against a retailer for injuries allegedly caused by chemical irritants in a cotton slip purchased from the defendant and worn by the wife without prior washing. The wife developed severe dermatitis immediately after wearing the garment, which she claimed caused pain, disfigurement, and a heart attack; the couple sought damages for these harms. At the close of the plaintiffs' proofs, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that there was no competent direct evidence of a defect or causation. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the circumstantial facts—immediate reaction to the new unwashed garment, no prior allergy history, and no other changes in clothing or diet—supported a legitimate inference that an irritant present at the time of purchase caused the injury and thereby established a prima facie case. The court noted that defense evidence might rebut the inference but that the question was one for the jury rather than a directed verdict as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over land conveyed for development of a shopping center under agreements that included an option for reconveyance to the sellers if certain conditions were not met. After the sellers executed a quitclaim deed to clear title for prospective tenants, they sued for reconveyance and other relief, claiming breaches by the buyers; the buyers countersued. The trial court ordered the buyers to pay taxes, the remaining purchase price, and begin construction with committed leases, or else reconvey the property. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that parol evidence was inadmissible to contradict the absolute terms of the quitclaim deed in the absence of fraud, mistake, or lack of consideration, and remanded for entry of a judgment consistent with that ruling.

propertyprocedure

In Webb v. Webb, the plaintiff wife filed for divorce in 1962 and obtained an injunction barring her husband from disposing of or transferring listed marital property, which included his life insurance policies. Days before his death in 1963, the husband changed the beneficiary designation on the policies to exclude the wife. The trial court ruled the change violated the injunction and ordered the wife restored as beneficiary; the defendant grandchildren appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the injunction language sufficiently covered the insurance interests and that a court may remedy an injunction violation by restoring the status quo, even after the violating party's death.

family lawproperty

The case involved a dispute over 200 shares of stock that plaintiff, an elderly widow, purchased with her own funds in 1956 and registered in joint tenancy with defendants (the parents of a minor child) for the child's future college education. Plaintiff retained the dividends during her lifetime and claimed she had orally instructed the defendants that she could reclaim the stock if needed, creating a revocable parol trust rather than an irrevocable gift. After defendants refused her request years later to sell and reinvest the shares, the trial court found a trust had been created and ordered the stock returned to plaintiff as sole owner. On de novo review, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the existence of a valid trust with a retained power of revocation that did not render the disposition testamentary, as legal title passed to the trustees and equitable title vested in the beneficiary subject to divestment.

property

The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for losses from a series of thefts of tires stored by plaintiff Edgar's Warehouse in building C of a multi-building complex. Plaintiff sued defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. on its Comprehensive Dishonest, Disappearance and Destruction Policy after the insurer denied the claim, and the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that the policy's burglary coverage applied only to felonious entry by force into the specific premises occupied solely by the insured (building C), as evidenced by visible marks or damage to its exterior, and that entries into adjacent buildings A and B did not qualify even if thieves later accessed C via an unlocked bridge. The court found only one qualifying forcible entry directly into building C and remanded for the trial court to determine which losses, if any, were attributable to that single occurrence.

business & regulatoryproperty