Court Opinion

ID: 9518347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:50:36.573558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:36.736376
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, P. J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent concerning my brothers’ resolution of the controlling issue in this case, namely, whether the Township of Bangor had the authority to construct a road over and across plaintiffs property.
I agree with the trial court and the plaintiff that the McNitt act1 does not permit township authorities to establish new roads. The defendants in the case at bar had no authority to establish a township road by condemnation, purchase, use or any other means.
In my dissenting opinion in Klein v Dudley, 59 Mich App 515, 520-521; 229 NW2d 831 (1975), I said:
"My reading of the act leads me to the conclusion *302that under the act, the townships were prohibited from acquiring any property for road purposes. The act removed all highway construction and maintenance responsibility from the township and placed the burden of maintaining township highways on the county road commission. See Maynard v Hawley, supra.2 I find it inconceivable that the Legislature would require the townships to rid themselves of their current roadways, but allow them to purchase or construct new ones. Such a finding would, in my opinion, be contrary to the legislative intent.”
I find nothing in the opinion of the majority which would lead me to abandon the position I embraced in Klein v Dudley, supra. Since the authority to build new roads and maintain and control any public roads was removed from the townships and placed with the county road commissioners of the respective counties, defendant had no right to construct the road in question over plaintiff’s lands, and, therefore, the complaint in trespass is well laid.
Accordingly, I would hold that the trial court was correct in granting the third order for summary judgment, in denying the motion to add defendants, in denying the petition to intervene by the Attorney General and in granting the injunction against continued trespass.
I vote to affirm.

 PA 1931, 130; being MCLA 247.1 et seq.; MSA 9.141 etseq.

 331 Mich 123; 49 NW2d 92 (1951).