Court Opinion

ID: 9692308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:51:04.585082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:34.000473
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(dissenting). In White v. Palmer, 233 Mich 32, decided in 1925, and in Township of Imlay v. Wurzel, 258 Mich 595, decided in 1932, this Court on each occasion announced and applied a valuably broad and so far enduring interpretation of long standing provisions of the former and present drain codes. Judge Sweet held such interpretation controlling of the decisive issue which the parties presented and tried before him. His opinion proceeds :
“A careful consideration of all of the evidence presented at the trial, the exhibits received in evidence, and the arguments and briefs of counsel leads to the conclusion that in these proceedings the defendant drain commissioner did not intend and did not seek to simply tile the Winterstein drain and thereafter use it as a part of the proposed new drain; rather, it must be concluded that the intent and purpose of the defendant drain commissioner was to locate, establish and construct a new drain, and that in so doing he would be in fact establishing a new drain over an existing, active drain which is still in use. The end which the defendant drain commissioner seeks to accomplish might be attained by him *422in proceedings to tile, extend, widen or deepen the Winterstein drain, but he has not so proceeded.
“It is the conclusion and decision of this court that the proceedings herein attacked by the plaintiff fall within the prohibition contained in the case of Township of Imlay v. Wurzel, and that there is not a sufficient recognition of the Winterstein drain to remove such proceedings from such prohibition, under the ruling in the case of White v. Palmer. It follows, therefore, that the defendant drain commissioner is without jurisdiction to further proceed.”
I agree with Judge Sweet’s reasoning and disposition of this case. Unerringly, he has pointed out the precedentially sound way by which the defendant drain commissioner may proceed and yet “recognize” the existing Winterstein drain, that is, by a distinct proceeding under chapter 8 of the drain code of 1956, as amended (CLS 1956, § 280.191 et seq., as amended [Stat Ann 1960 Rev §11.1191 et seq.])* designed to deepen, widen, or tile (or any combination of such permitted projects) the existing drain.
The rule of the White and Imlay Township Cases, interpretively governing — as it has for 3 decades— the statutory duties of Michigan drain assessees and the statutory duties of Michigan drain assessors, requires continued “recognition” by this Court lest we water the beneficial stock of usefully settled precedent. Too, this is another case where the valuable-in-its-plaee doctrine of legislative acceptance should be guide right for a court which is confronted with visible proof of such acceptance. As suggested in my Brother’s opinion, the White and Imlay Township Cases were both “recognized” and implemented by the act of 1954 (No 189, chapter 5, § 18). Such recognition and implementation is now incorporated in the drain code as section 443 (CLS 1956, § 280.443 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 11.1443]).
*423Every time a court of last resort, even by dint of diaphanous hint, casts some cloud of doubt upon the long since interpreted meaning of a standing statute, dismaying seeds of uncertainty and cultivated litigation are planted throughout the jurisdiction. And as they are sown, so must the expectably burgeoning crop be reaped.
I would not sow, there being no presently good reason for the casting of such doubt. My vote to affirm is cast accordingly.
Kelly, J., concurred with Black, J.
O’Hara, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 CLS 1956, § 280.193 lias been amended by PA 1962, No 103.