Court Opinion

ID: 9663587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:43:59.095941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:52.573800
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring), I concur. Unless, as recently urged here, “it is enough that challenge to jurisdiction over the subject matter need merely be suggested on the record to impose upon a court the duty of conducting inquiry as to its jurisdiction to proceed” (Haenlein v. Saginaw Building Trades Council, A. F. L., 361 Mich 263, 276), the appeal of the defendant labor union should be dismissed for want of submission to this Court, in conformity with 1959-amended section 6 of Court Rule No 67 (355 Mich xiv), of essential proof supporting the union’s plea to the jurisdiction.
The defendant union’s naked challenge to the jurisdiction imposes no duty on this Court to conduct its own inquiry into that question, and I reject again Mr. Justice Smith’s declaration (Haenlein, p 270) that “When such a jurisdictional question has been brought to the attention of a court, its first duty is to make an inquiry and determination even despite failure of the parties themselves to plead or argue the question.” As written in Haenlein (p 269), my signature will never sanction a mere allegation, con*639sisting of crossed jurisdictional fingers tagged “you can’t touch us,” as the means of forcing this Court or any of our trial courts to investigate and record the evidentiary facts which deny or uphold local jurisdiction under the national labor relations act.
An example of the worth of mere pleading to the jurisdiction, compared with proof essential to a proper determination of the pleaded question, may be found upon examination of all opinions of Peoples Savings Bank v. Stoddard, 351 Mich 342, and Peoples Savings Bank v. Stoddard, 359 Mich 297.