Case Name: McDONALD v. DRAGER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-10-26
Citations: 27 Mich. App. 346
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 7,949, 7,950
Parties: McDONALD v. DRAGER
Judges: Before: Quinn, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and Ziem, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 27
Pages: 346–347

Head Matter:
McDONALD v. DRAGER
Appeal from Macomb, George R. Deneweth and Howard R. Carroll, JJ.
Submitted Division 2 October 14,1970, at Lansing.
(Docket Nos. 7,949, 7,950.)
Decided October 26, 1970.
Rehearing denied December 7, 1970.
Complaint by William D. McDonald, mayor of Roseville, Wilson M. Jackson, John and Mary Salatrik, and others as a class of residents, electors and taxpayers of Roseville against Richard Drager and other members of the Roseville City Council to rescind two municipal- resolutions, and against Joseph Savage, Roseville City Clerk, to strike from the permanent journal of proceedings of the city council the two resolutions. Summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. Complaint by William D. McDonald against Richard Drager and other members of the city council and James D. Bottomley, acting city manager, to rescind certain municipal code provisions and a termination notice. Summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Cases consolidated on appeal.
Affirmed.
William D. McDonald, in propria persona (Robert J. Lord, of counsel).
Wilson M. Jackson, for plaintiffs Salatrik and for himself.
Ross, Bruff & Rancilio, P. G., for defendants.
Before: Quinn, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and Ziem, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In each of the cases involved, the trial judges granted defendants' motion for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(1). Each appeal questions the propriety of summary disposition. It is apparent that the cause of litigation in each instance is disagreement between the mayor and the city council of Roseville as to their respective authority in the municipal affairs of their community.
We perceive no jurisprudential purpose to be served by lengthy discussion of the issues raised on appeal, and, conceivably, by doing so, we would add to the existing disharmony between these municipal officials.
We have reviewed the trial court records and we have considered the briefs filed by the parties. We are not persuaded that the trial judges erred in granting summary judgment for defendants.
Affirmed but without costs, a public question being involved.