Court Opinion

ID: 9520034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:29:45.789363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:27.709385
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs appeal of right a lower court judgment denying them injunctive relief prohibiting defendant from selling grave markers and memorials for use in its own municipal cemeteries. We affirm.
Under the Michigan Constitution a municipal corporation may "acquire, own, establish and maintain” public cemeteries. Const 1963, art 7, § 23. This constitutional authority is not self-executing but requires enabling legislation. Wayne Village President v Wayne Village Clerk, 323 Mich 592; 36 NW2d 157; 8 ALR2d 357 (1949). The necessary statutory authority giving defendant the right to maintain its public cemeteries is found in the home rule cities act. MCL 117.1 et seq.; MSA 5.2071 et seq. In pertinent part, that act states that home rule cities may provide in their charters for the acquisition and operation of cemeteries and for the costs and expenses thereof. MCL 117.4e; MSA 5.2078.
*535In general, the powers that cities possess fall into three categories: those granted in express words; those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; and those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the municipal corporation. Home Owners' Loan Corp v Detroit, 292 Mich 511; 290 NW 888 (1940), Toebe v City of Munising, 282 Mich 1; 275 NW 744 (1937). The power that defendant seeks in this case can be fairly implied from its authority to acquire, maintain, develop and operate its cemeteries and from its authority to provide for the costs and expenses thereof. We find this result supported by several considerations.
First, in accordance with the constitution, Const 1963, art 7, § 34, and with case law, 1426 Woodward Avenue Corp v Wolff, 312 Mich 352, 369; 20 NW2d 217 (1945), the provisions of the home rule cities act must be liberally construed in favor of municipalities. In light of this requirement, the Legislature’s grant of authority to municipalities to acquire, maintain, develop and operate cemeteries and to provide for the costs and expenses thereof should be interpreted to give defendant the power to sell grave markers in its own cemeteries. Cf. McIntosh v City of Muskegon, 88 Mich App 30; 276 NW2d 510 (1979).
We also note that the primary reason that defendant sells grave markers is to help finance its cemetery operations. In Wetherby v City of Jackson, 264 Mich 146, 151; 249 NW 484 (1933), the Supreme Court stated that such a reason would support an otherwise valid municipal regulation of a cemetery:
"The rule prohibiting the erection of the tents of *536private funeral directors for use at funerals and compelling the use of the tents of the city or of the cemetery board is a condition attached to the exercise of the right of burial, and may be justified under the police power which has to consider rights of other lot owners and those where burial is to take place, and may be justified upon the ground of public revenue for the care, support, and maintenance and ornamentation of the cemetery itself.” (Emphasis supplied)
In sum, we hold that the power to sell grave markers is reasonably related to the authority given defendant over its cemeteries.
Plaintiffs also argue that by failing to charge sales tax on the monuments that it sells, defendant has engaged in unfair price discrimination resulting in the establishment of an illegal monopoly under the fair trade act, MCL 445.701 et seq.; MSA 28.31 et seq. We find this argument unpersuasive.
The fair trade act has no application to the instant case. There is no evidence that defendant has engaged in an illegal "combination” with another person in restraint of trade. MCL 445.701; MSA 28.31. Further, because defendant’s buyers are not in competition with one another, defendant cannot be said to have unfairly bestowed a competitive advantage upon one of its buyers to the disadvantage of that buyer’s competitors. Finally, the 4% differential produced by the nonpayment of sales tax is not so unreasonably great as to render defendant’s competition unfair and there is no evidence that defendant ever entertained the intent to "destroy” or "eliminate” private monument dealers in Pontiac.
Affirmed. No costs, a public question being involved.