The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1912-12-17
ALLEGED COURT
FRAUD % YEARS
AGO TOBE AIRED
Case Against d., G. H. & M. To
BE Reopened in Michigan
Supreme Court
FACTS WITHHELD, 1T is
CLAIMED. IN JOY CASE
Under Decision D., G. H. & M.
Claims Exemption From
Just Share Of Taxes

LANSING. Mich. Dec. I7.-(spe-
ciall--At the request Of Gov. os-
born. Atty.-Gen. wykes win reopen
IN the supreme court. the case against
the Detroit, Grand Haven, & Milwau-
kee railroad In an effort to force that
corporation 70 pay its just share OF
taxes 70 the state and to collect the
exemptions the road claims as the re-
suit Of = territorial charter granted
"a 1884.
There was no reservation ut that
time Of the right TO alter. amend or
repeal corporate charters. The grant
when accepted thus became con-
tract with the state, which no subse-
Quent legislature could repeal
In 1886. this charter was amended
20 include the tax exemption which
the D., q. Ht.& M. at present claims.
The amendment provided for the
change IN the name OF the. company
to the Detroit q Milwaukee Railroad
CO. The constitution OF 1850 con-
tanned provision requiring all cor
pornti0ns to- be organized under gen.
eral laws and making these general
laws subject to alteration. amendment
on rspeal at the legislatures will No
legislature. then, since 1850. could
grant q charter or create corpora
ton which Il could not repeal or.
amend. OF whose existence Il could
not annul.
In 1859 an act was passed. permit
ting the purchase on foreclosure Of
any railway or railroad property to re
organize thereundeF. The D., G.. H. g.
N. situation depends upon whether
this act IL to be-construed as continn-
ing In existence the corporation whose
mortgage was forecioseda or whether
II Is to be treated as creating new
ccrporation
THAT act was drawn by Attorney
4 Emmons for the Detroit & Milwaukee,
railroad. His statements OF its mean
ing. import and intent. which the state.
has Ia numerous writings. indicated
that the purpose was an act for The
organization of~new corporations. The
tompany and the succeeding conn
h banies always 90 treated It. In hun
dreds OF documents this constructions
Of the act by the railroad company
and its SUCCESSORS and their officers
vas indicated, and Il never took q diff
ferent position until afteE the JOY
case In 1884, II used. the fact thatAa
new corporation was created TO escape
the payment Of the obligations OF the
old one which.rggresated several NIB
lions OF dollars
The Joy case was presented to the
court and decided within q week Of
the time when the first papers we're
fled The record I'm that case was
made up without calling 70 the atten-
ton Of the court the surrounding his
tory Of the numerous documents which
indicated that the purpose OF and the
practice under the act Of 1859 was to
create new corporations.
Il Is claimed that the court was en-.
titled 10 know these facts, and that In
snppressing them. the attorneys for the
company misrepresented the situation
70 the court and were guilty OF fraud
upon the court
State oficials claim that had the
true fncts been before the court, the
decision In the Joy case would have
been otherwise. end would have been
that new corporations were created.
and BY reason OF these corporations |
having been created under the consti !
futlon 81 1850. which reserved the
right 70 alter. amend or appeal, and
that therefore, the D., @. III. a NJ.
WA subject to state control, and Its
charter subject to repeal
One Of the most prominent Detroit
attorneys stated that In making for
4 rehearing. Il should be based upon |
the ground OF a fraud having been |
perpetrAted on the court, and II was |
his judgment that such fraud had
been prhcticed. and that the decision
~ the Joy case was erroneous. The
monuments to prove that the facts
we're suppressed and were not brought
before the court In the Joy case, were
but recently discovered. They are
known to Gov. Osborn, Atty. Gen.
s Wykes and other state officers.
There 10 only one complaining cir.
cufnstance. namely, that 20 years have
elapsed since the fraud was perpe-
trated. The answer by state ofiiciaIs
20 this Il. that innocent parties have
not acquired an interest in the prop
eftyi that the present owners OF the
property have profited by their mis-
representation In escaping taxes for
X long period and the fact that they
have proflted by their own misrepre-
nentntion for 50 long a period should
not prevent the state from redressing
the wrong and correcting the decision
when evidence of the wrong is dis
3 covered
...... -. 1. ". !