Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Due process

Michigan Law Review

State and Local Government Law

1934

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Corporations-Purchase Of Notes And Mortgages As "Doing Business" Dec 1934

Corporations-Purchase Of Notes And Mortgages As "Doing Business"

Michigan Law Review

C was engaged in loaning money in Idaho. He sold many of the notes and mortgages which he thus received to the plaintiff, a foreign corporation. It was his practice, nevertheless, to collect the interest on these notes and remit it to the plaintiff. The actual sales of the notes and mortgages occurred in Chicago. In this manner the plaintiff acquired the note of the defendant, a resident of Idaho and his mortgage on Idaho land. The Idaho statute forbids a foreign corporation "doing business" in the State to sue in its courts without taking certain qualifying steps. The plaintiff, …


Constitutional Law - Due Process - Fishing Rights In The Public Waters Of Michigan Apr 1934

Constitutional Law - Due Process - Fishing Rights In The Public Waters Of Michigan

Michigan Law Review

The Ne-Bo-Shone Association, Inc., is an Ohio corporation which owns property on both banks of the Pine River for some distance. Following the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in Collins V. Gerhardt that the stream is navigable and public, the complainant association was ordered to remove obstructions in the stream which hampered the free use of the stream by the public for fishing purposes. Thereupon complainant sought an in junction against certain public officials from taking action to remove these obstructions, claiming that it has the right to exclude the public from this portion of the Pine River, and …


The Municipality As A Unit In Ratemaking And Confiscation Cases, Robert D. Armstrong Jan 1934

The Municipality As A Unit In Ratemaking And Confiscation Cases, Robert D. Armstrong

Michigan Law Review

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the so-called Martinsville case has been interpreted by some critics as laying down a "municipal unit doctrine" of rate making, denying to a system utility the right to earn from its entire operations a fair return on the value of its entire property, and substituting therefor a "bundle of rights" to earn in each "municipality" served a fair return on the value of the property used and useful therefor.