Black, J.
(for reversal). Stimulated by no judicial bravos, the present attorney general has — for this latest Edison Case1 — delivered an errant encore of that aria buff a which, nearly a decade ago, his predecessor chanted before a not very enthusiastic Court. See what we have come to know as the second Edison Case (Detroit Edison Company v. State, 361 Mich 290, decided September 16, 1960). The attorney general intoned then, and Attorney General Kelley chants now, that the remedy of review before the corporation tax appeal board (provided by PA 1921, No 85, as amended by PA 1954, No 153; CLS 1961, § 450.309 [Stat Ann 1963 Rev §21.210])2 was and is exclusive; the 1959 official [502]*502crescendo having been that “jurisdiction is lodged exclusively in the corporation tax appeal board pursuant to PA 1921, No 85, as amended.” (361 Mich 290, 296, 297.) We thought that song had ended with our wholly negative decision of 1960, but the melody seems to linger on, and on, and on.
We hold again, as in the second Edison Case, that the administrative remedy contended for by the attorney general is not exclusive. We hold further that Edison has rightfully sought review, pursuant to the administrative procedures act (PA 1952, No 197 [CLS 1961, § 24.101 et seq., Stat Ann 1961 Rev § 3.560(21.1) et seq.]), of the whole of what in great part is now conceded to be another gross over-assessment of Edison’s statutorily payable franchise fees.3 The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed with remand for reinstatement of the circuit court’s order denying the treasury department’s motion for accelerated judgment.
[503]*503First: The Question op Exclusive Bemedy.
"When the second Edison Case came to considera-. tion and decision, all of the Justices agreed upon the result reached: that result being reversal upon unanimous determination that the remedy of review provided by CLS 1961, § 450.309 is not exclusive. Our differences then were as to the preferred method of achieving such a result upon the record made, and each of the preferences was selective without disparagement of the other. Two Justices, this writer and Justice Souris, stood for reversal on ground that the court of claims act provided an alternately available forum for determination of Edison’s claim for reimbursement of what the corporation and securities commission had compelled it to pay in order to obtain a certificate of corporate good standing.. Three others, Justices Carr, Dethmers, and Kelly,' grounded their judgment of noiiexclusivity on an even broader base, that “It is significant that the-legislature [referring to the act of 1921 as amended] did not specify that the remedies to a corporation, thereby afforded, would be exclusive.” (p 307.) Two others, Justices Edwards and Talbot Smith, grounded their votes for the same result on the equally tenable view that “plaintiff’s [Edison’s] normal administrative remedy had been barred by the refusal of the commission to issue the redeter-mination called for by the statute.” (p 308.)
As against the second Edison Case Division 2 erred seriously when the assigned judges agreed (13 Mich App 153, 157) :
“In our opinion plaintiff’s exclusive method of review from the redetermination by the treasury department was an appeal to the appeal board. The. circuit court, not having jurisdiction, should have' granted defendants’ motion for accelerated judgment.”
[504]*504In order that this question of allegedly exclusive remedy may be settled with new finality, we formally adopt the following portion of Justice Carr’s opinion of the second Edison Case (pp 306, 307):
“The motion to dismiss was granted on the ground that the court of claims was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. It was the opinion of the presiding judge that under PA 1921, No 85, as amended by PA 1954, No 153 (CLS 1956, §§ 450-.309, 450.310 [Stat Ann 1959 Cum Supp §§ 21.210, 21.210(1)]), plaintiff was limited to the remedies allowed by the procedure therein set forth. The specific sections cited provide for notice to a corporation subject to the provisions of the act as to the amount of its franchise fee liability, with the right to ask for a redetermination thereof by the commission within a period of 20 days after receipt of such notice. Review by an appeal board composed of the attorney general, the State treasurer, and the auditor general, may be claimed by either the commission or the corporation, with subsequent review by this Court. The amendments made further permitted a demand for a refund on the part of a corporation for an excessive payment made by it for franchise fee liability with the right of review by the appeal board and subsequently by this Court. Such methods of procedure were indicated to be independent, it apparently being the intention of the legislature that either or both might be followed.
“It is significant that the legislature did not specify' that the remedies to a corporation, thereby afforded, would be exclusive. In view of the decision of this Court in In re Consolidated Freight Co. [1933], 265 Mich 340, 348 (4 PUR NS 397), it may be assumed that the legislature intended that the review in this Court should be confined wholly to questions of law, in other words, an appeal in the nature of certiorari. If, therefore, the statutory procedure under the 1954 act, above cited, is exclusive, a corporation consider[505]*505ing itself aggrieved by being required to pay the amount of the franchise fee as fixed by the commission has no remedy by which factual issues can be tried in court.”
Second: The Administrative Procedures Act.
It will not take long to point out that this act (PA 1952, No 197, as amended) by section 1 thereof defines “agency” as meaning “any state board, commission, department, bureau or officer, authorized by law to make rules or to adjudicate contested cases, except the workmen’s compensation commission, the employment security commission, the department of revenue, the public service commission and those in the legislative and judicial branches.”4 The section quoted expressly includes all boards, commissions, departments, bureaus and officers except those expressly excepted. Neither the former corporation and securities commission nor the present treasury department and the officers and directors thereof are expressly excepted. Edison therefore was and now is possessed of right to review, under the administrative procedures act, the aforesaid redetermination, a redetermination which, as shown by its complaint below, was made under the first paragraph of CLS 1961, § 450.309. Indeed, the administrative procedures act provides that available remedy which eliminates need for determination of a serious constitutional question, to which we now briefly advert.
The constitutional question, stated baldly from and upon questions put and answers made during' oral argument of this case, is whether the paragraph 2 remedy provided by CLS 1961, § 450.309 could, as [506]*506the attorney’ general would apply it here,5 provide Edison with that kind of due process which authorities like In re Murchison (1955), 349 US 133 (75 S Ct 623, 99 L Ed 942); Lookholder v. State Highway Commissioner (1958), 354 Mich 28, and Glass v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Black, J.
(for reversal). Stimulated by no judicial bravos, the present attorney general has — for this latest Edison Case1 — delivered an errant encore of that aria buff a which, nearly a decade ago, his predecessor chanted before a not very enthusiastic Court. See what we have come to know as the second Edison Case (Detroit Edison Company v. State, 361 Mich 290, decided September 16, 1960). The attorney general intoned then, and Attorney General Kelley chants now, that the remedy of review before the corporation tax appeal board (provided by PA 1921, No 85, as amended by PA 1954, No 153; CLS 1961, § 450.309 [Stat Ann 1963 Rev §21.210])2 was and is exclusive; the 1959 official [502]*502crescendo having been that “jurisdiction is lodged exclusively in the corporation tax appeal board pursuant to PA 1921, No 85, as amended.” (361 Mich 290, 296, 297.) We thought that song had ended with our wholly negative decision of 1960, but the melody seems to linger on, and on, and on.
We hold again, as in the second Edison Case, that the administrative remedy contended for by the attorney general is not exclusive. We hold further that Edison has rightfully sought review, pursuant to the administrative procedures act (PA 1952, No 197 [CLS 1961, § 24.101 et seq., Stat Ann 1961 Rev § 3.560(21.1) et seq.]), of the whole of what in great part is now conceded to be another gross over-assessment of Edison’s statutorily payable franchise fees.3 The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed with remand for reinstatement of the circuit court’s order denying the treasury department’s motion for accelerated judgment.
[503]*503First: The Question op Exclusive Bemedy.
"When the second Edison Case came to considera-. tion and decision, all of the Justices agreed upon the result reached: that result being reversal upon unanimous determination that the remedy of review provided by CLS 1961, § 450.309 is not exclusive. Our differences then were as to the preferred method of achieving such a result upon the record made, and each of the preferences was selective without disparagement of the other. Two Justices, this writer and Justice Souris, stood for reversal on ground that the court of claims act provided an alternately available forum for determination of Edison’s claim for reimbursement of what the corporation and securities commission had compelled it to pay in order to obtain a certificate of corporate good standing.. Three others, Justices Carr, Dethmers, and Kelly,' grounded their judgment of noiiexclusivity on an even broader base, that “It is significant that the-legislature [referring to the act of 1921 as amended] did not specify that the remedies to a corporation, thereby afforded, would be exclusive.” (p 307.) Two others, Justices Edwards and Talbot Smith, grounded their votes for the same result on the equally tenable view that “plaintiff’s [Edison’s] normal administrative remedy had been barred by the refusal of the commission to issue the redeter-mination called for by the statute.” (p 308.)
As against the second Edison Case Division 2 erred seriously when the assigned judges agreed (13 Mich App 153, 157) :
“In our opinion plaintiff’s exclusive method of review from the redetermination by the treasury department was an appeal to the appeal board. The. circuit court, not having jurisdiction, should have' granted defendants’ motion for accelerated judgment.”
[504]*504In order that this question of allegedly exclusive remedy may be settled with new finality, we formally adopt the following portion of Justice Carr’s opinion of the second Edison Case (pp 306, 307):
“The motion to dismiss was granted on the ground that the court of claims was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. It was the opinion of the presiding judge that under PA 1921, No 85, as amended by PA 1954, No 153 (CLS 1956, §§ 450-.309, 450.310 [Stat Ann 1959 Cum Supp §§ 21.210, 21.210(1)]), plaintiff was limited to the remedies allowed by the procedure therein set forth. The specific sections cited provide for notice to a corporation subject to the provisions of the act as to the amount of its franchise fee liability, with the right to ask for a redetermination thereof by the commission within a period of 20 days after receipt of such notice. Review by an appeal board composed of the attorney general, the State treasurer, and the auditor general, may be claimed by either the commission or the corporation, with subsequent review by this Court. The amendments made further permitted a demand for a refund on the part of a corporation for an excessive payment made by it for franchise fee liability with the right of review by the appeal board and subsequently by this Court. Such methods of procedure were indicated to be independent, it apparently being the intention of the legislature that either or both might be followed.
“It is significant that the legislature did not specify' that the remedies to a corporation, thereby afforded, would be exclusive. In view of the decision of this Court in In re Consolidated Freight Co. [1933], 265 Mich 340, 348 (4 PUR NS 397), it may be assumed that the legislature intended that the review in this Court should be confined wholly to questions of law, in other words, an appeal in the nature of certiorari. If, therefore, the statutory procedure under the 1954 act, above cited, is exclusive, a corporation consider[505]*505ing itself aggrieved by being required to pay the amount of the franchise fee as fixed by the commission has no remedy by which factual issues can be tried in court.”
Second: The Administrative Procedures Act.
It will not take long to point out that this act (PA 1952, No 197, as amended) by section 1 thereof defines “agency” as meaning “any state board, commission, department, bureau or officer, authorized by law to make rules or to adjudicate contested cases, except the workmen’s compensation commission, the employment security commission, the department of revenue, the public service commission and those in the legislative and judicial branches.”4 The section quoted expressly includes all boards, commissions, departments, bureaus and officers except those expressly excepted. Neither the former corporation and securities commission nor the present treasury department and the officers and directors thereof are expressly excepted. Edison therefore was and now is possessed of right to review, under the administrative procedures act, the aforesaid redetermination, a redetermination which, as shown by its complaint below, was made under the first paragraph of CLS 1961, § 450.309. Indeed, the administrative procedures act provides that available remedy which eliminates need for determination of a serious constitutional question, to which we now briefly advert.
The constitutional question, stated baldly from and upon questions put and answers made during' oral argument of this case, is whether the paragraph 2 remedy provided by CLS 1961, § 450.309 could, as [506]*506the attorney’ general would apply it here,5 provide Edison with that kind of due process which authorities like In re Murchison (1955), 349 US 133 (75 S Ct 623, 99 L Ed 942); Lookholder v. State Highway Commissioner (1958), 354 Mich 28, and Glass v. State Highway Commissioner (1963), 370 Mich 482, minimally require. The significance of these authorities is appropriately summed up in the recent text of 16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, § 582, p 988:
Ҥ 582. Requirements of fairness and impartiality.
“Due process requires that the tribunal be a fair and impartial one. Impartiality is lacking where a member of the tribunal has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding. And a statute which compels a litigant to submit his controversy to a tribunal of which his adversary is a member does not afford due process of law.”
Consider the appeal board which the second paragraph of CLS 1961, § 450.309 constitutes. It is composed of 3 members. One is the attorney general. One is the State treasurer. The latter has already decided the issue' which the attorney general says must be reviewed by the appeal board; the treasurer having sat as a statutory redeterminer of the assessment now in question. As for the attorney general, granting him the utter purity of a Galahad, we can only say (as in Offutt v. United States [1954], 348 US 11, 14 [75 S Ct 11, 99 L Ed 11) and repeated in In re Murchison, supra at 136) that to perform its high function in the best way “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” The attorney general’s appearance as advocate now for.review by the appeal [507]*507board, then his nimble ascendancy to the appeal board for decisional purposes, and then his return to advocacy for the purposes of appeal under the third paragraph of the same section; all this naturally raises the appearance—only that of course— of injustice. No more need be said.
Upon remand the circuit court will proceed toward prompt determination of all meritorious issues raised by plaintiff’s complaint and whatever answer thereto the attorney general files. From such determination any party deeming ■ itself or himself aggrieved may appeal directly to this Court as on granted leave. Plaintiff will have costs of all three courts thus far sustained.
Bethmers, J., concurred with Black, J.
Kelly, J., concurred in the result.