Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. Calhoun Probate Judge

Michigan Court of Appeals

Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. Calhoun Probate Judge

186 N.W.2d 395, 30 Mich. App. 81, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2162

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 22, 1971

DocketDocket No. 9337

StatusPublished

This text of 186 N.W.2d 395 (Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. Calhoun Probate Judge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. Calhoun Probate Judge, 186 N.W.2d 395, 30 Mich. App. 81, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2162 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

B. B. Burns, J.

Pursuant to the right of eminent domain granted by the oil pipe line act (MCLA § 483.1 et seq [Stat Ann 1970 Rev § 22.1341 et seq]) appellant commenced a condemnation proceeding in probate court. The proceeding, to obtain a right-of-way for the purpose of operating and maintaining a crude oil pipe line, was contested by appellees, both as to the necessity of the right-of-way and as to the amount of compensation. The question of necessity was resolved in appellant’s favor.

The probate court entered an order granting attorney’s fees, witness’ fees, and expenses to the appellees. Appellant sought superintending control in the circuit court, claiming that the probate judge acted without jurisdiction, power, or authority in granting the fees and costs to appellees.

Lakehead appeals the circuit court’s decision upholding the probate award and assigns the following question for consideration:

Does the Oil Pipe Line Act authorize the court to grant and allow reasonable attorney fees, witness fees and costs to landowners in condemnation proceedings brought under the right of eminent domain granted by said act?

The oil pipeline statute does not in and of itself contain instructions concerning the award of such fees and costs. However, the pipeline act contains a provision which incorporates the railroad act. Section 2 of the act states in part:

“such condemnation proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the same procedure and in the same manner as is provided by the laws of [83]*83this state for the condemnation of right-of-ways by railroad companies.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The railroad act contains a provision which expressly authorizes an award of “a reasonable attorney fee * * * together with witness fees and other costs and disbursements”. MCLA § 464.15 (Stat Ann 1970 Rev § 22.218).

We hold the provision of the oil pipeline act which incorporates the procedures of the railroad act authorizes the award of reasonable attorney fees, witness fees, costs, and disbursements in condemnation proceedings under the oil pipeline act.

Affirmed. Costs to appellees.

All concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

B. B. Burns, J.

Pursuant to the right of eminent domain granted by the oil pipe line act (MCLA § 483.1 et seq [Stat Ann 1970 Rev § 22.1341 et seq]) appellant commenced a condemnation proceeding in probate court. The proceeding, to obtain a right-of-way for the purpose of operating and maintaining a crude oil pipe line, was contested by appellees, both as to the necessity of the right-of-way and as to the amount of compensation. The question of necessity was resolved in appellant’s favor.

The probate court entered an order granting attorney’s fees, witness’ fees, and expenses to the appellees. Appellant sought superintending control in the circuit court, claiming that the probate judge acted without jurisdiction, power, or authority in granting the fees and costs to appellees.

Lakehead appeals the circuit court’s decision upholding the probate award and assigns the following question for consideration:

Does the Oil Pipe Line Act authorize the court to grant and allow reasonable attorney fees, witness fees and costs to landowners in condemnation proceedings brought under the right of eminent domain granted by said act?

The oil pipeline statute does not in and of itself contain instructions concerning the award of such fees and costs. However, the pipeline act contains a provision which incorporates the railroad act. Section 2 of the act states in part:

“such condemnation proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the same procedure and in the same manner as is provided by the laws of [83]*83this state for the condemnation of right-of-ways by railroad companies.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The railroad act contains a provision which expressly authorizes an award of “a reasonable attorney fee * * * together with witness fees and other costs and disbursements”. MCLA § 464.15 (Stat Ann 1970 Rev § 22.218).

We hold the provision of the oil pipeline act which incorporates the procedures of the railroad act authorizes the award of reasonable attorney fees, witness fees, costs, and disbursements in condemnation proceedings under the oil pipeline act.

Affirmed. Costs to appellees.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 N.W.2d 395, 30 Mich. App. 81, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lakehead-pipe-line-co-v-calhoun-probate-judge-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

B. B. Burns, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack