#### WILBUR *v.*CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS.

Injunction — Taxpayer's Suit — Parking Facility Revenue Bonds— Pleading — Parties.

Bill seeking injunction against sale of self-liquidating revenue bonds to pay for acquisition and construction of parking facilities and for refunding of outstanding bonds of a previous parking revenue bond issue but which does not allege that issuance of the proposed bonds would injure plaintiff's rights as a taxpayer or serve to increase or affect the taxes levied or to be levied on her property failed to make out a case for the relief sought or to show plaintiff to be a proper party therefor (CL 1948, § 141.101 *et seg.).*

References for Points in Headnotes

51 Am Jur, Taxation § 1223 *et seg.*

*203Appeal from Superior Court of Grand Rapids; Taylor (Tliaddeus B.), J.

Submitted July 1, 1958.

(Calendar No. 47,839.)

Decided July 8, 1958;

opinion filed July 15, 1958.

Bill by Prances Wilbur against the City of Grand Rapids, a municipal corporation, its City Commissioners and various of its officials to enjoin issuance and sale of bonds to refund present issue and to further develop self-liquidating parking facilities. Motion to dismiss bill denied. Defendants review by appeal in nature of mandamus to direct dismissal of bill.

Reversed and remanded for dismissal of bill.

*Wencel A. Milanowski (Henry J. Milanowski,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*Claude Vander Ploeg,*City Attorney, and *Miller Canfield, Paddock & Stone (John H. Nunneley,*of counsel), for defendants.

Dethmers, C. J.

Plaintiff filed her bill, complaining of the defendant city commission that it adopted an ordinance authorizing acquisition and construction of parking facilities and issuance of self-liquidating revenue bonds to pay the costs thereof .and to refund outstanding bonds of a previous parking revenue bond issue and providing for retirement of the bonds to be issued from revenues of the'parking system; that it adopted a resolution pursuant thereto for the sale of said refunding' and improvement revenue bonds, which are to be payable, under the ordinance, out of net revenues of the parking system and are not to be general obligations of the city; that refunding of the outstanding earlier bonds will necessitate payment of a premium for their premature calling and also payment of a higher interest rate on the new bonds issued for refunding *204purposes than, is called for on the old bonds to be refunded thereby, and that this will result in the waste of public funds. The ordinance authorizing the original bond issue and the one authorizing the new proposed issue proceeded under the authority of PA 1933, No 94, as amended (see CL 1948 and CLS 1956, § 141.101 *et seq.*[Stat Ann 1949 Rev and Stat Ann 1957 Cum Supp § 5.2731 *et*seq.]). Plaintiff prays that the issue and sale of the proposed bonds be enjoined.

Defendants moved to dismiss. Prom the trial court’s denial of their motion, on leave granted, they have taken an appeal here in the nature of mandamus, praying for a writ directing the court below to enter an order dismissing the case.

The allegations of plaintiff’s bill of complaint do not cause it to appear .that issuance of the revenue bonds would injure her rights as a taxpayer or serve to increase or affect the taxes levied or to be levied on her property. *Menendez*v. *City of Detroit,*337 Mich 476, is conclusive of a holding that her bill does not make out a case for injunctive relief or show her to be a proper party plaintiff in a suit for the relief sought. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss, based on that and other grounds, should have been granted.

Reversed and remanded for entry of order dismissing. Costs to defendants.

Carr, Kelly, Smith, Black, Edwards, Voelker, and Kavanagh, JJ., concurred.