Court Opinion

ID: 9542193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:31:44.531614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:00.595449
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring in result). I concur in the result reached by Judge Bronson for his stated reason that upon the basis of the total record the application of the ordinance to plaintiffs’ property and the consequent limit of use thereunder amounts in legal effect to confiscation.
I regret I must decline to pass upon the question *356of whether the trailer park act1 and the township rural zoning act2 read together or individually prohibit the establishment of greater restrictions than contained in the statutes.
The issue was not raised below, hence, the trial judge could not pass upon it. It was not raised as an assignment of error by appellants. It was not raised defensively by appellee.
The fact that it was adverted to upon oral argument is insufficient to put the question before us decisionally. On a question of such moment we need an initial holding by the trial judge, adequate briefing, and perhaps intervention by the Attorney General. My vote is to reverse with directions to the township to grant appellants’ petition to erect a mobile home park in conformance with all valid existing requirements.

 MCLA 125.1001, etseq.;MSA 5.278(31) etseq.

 MCLA 125.271, etseq.;MSA 5.2963(1) etseq.