Court Opinion

ID: 9849268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:37:27.188771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:12.462193
License: Public Domain

T. M. Kavanagh, J.
{dissenting). The main issue of controversy is whether or not the State franchise *122fees shall he determined by the Michigan corporation and securities commission on the basis of accounting methods permitted or required by the Michigan public service commission for rate-making purposes.
For the reasons set forth in my opinion in McLouth Steel Corporation v. Corporation & Securities Commission (1963), 372 Mich 76, and for the reasons given by Justice Edwards in dissent in Detroit Edison Company v. Corporation & Securities Commission, 361 Mich 150, 158, by Justice Souris in dissent in Detroit Edison Company v. Corporation & Securities Commission (1962), 367 Mich 104, and by Judge Holbrook in dissent in Corporation $ Securities Commission v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (1967), 7 Mich App 552, 558, we would hold that the franchise fees should be determined without regard to the Michigan public service commission’s accounting methods. We should reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Matters of statutory construction being involved, no costs will be allowed.
Adams, J., concurred with T. M. Kavanagh, J.
Kelly, J., took no part in the decision of this case.