[682]*682Kelly, J.
Defendant was elected judge of the recorder’s court for the city of Cadillac for a 4-year term, commencing January 1,1954. An information in the nature of quo warranto was filed, challenging-defendant’s right to hold the office because he was not a qualified attorney authorized and licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan, as required by Local Acts 1895, No 429.
The main question presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding and entering-judgment that:
“The legislature could not, by Local Acts 1895, No 429, lawfully attach qualifications to the office of judge of recorder’s court when no such qualifications for judicial office were required by the State Constitution of 1850 and that to attempt to do so would be an encroachment by the legislature upon the powers and functions of the judiciary.”
The State Constitution of 1850, art 6, § 1, - provided :
“The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court, in circuit courts in probate courts, and in justices of the peace. Municipal courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction may be estabished by the legislature in cities.”
Appellee states:
“We believe this case is governed by the case of Attorney General, ex rel. Cook, v. O’Neill, 280 Mich 649. * * *
“The O’Neill Case set the pattern, we believe, that the judicial department of the government, or any of its branches or courts cannot be dictated to by the legislature; that the judicial department is a separate department of government under the doctrine of separation of powers. * * * Therefore, it seems inescapable that the O’Neill Case controls the case at bar in its pronouncement that the legisla[683]*683ture cannot set up the qualification that one must be a lawyer to hold judicial office (unless and until the constitutional framework is amended to so provide).”
In this regard it is worthy of note that at the biennial spring election of April 4, 1955, an amendment to the Constitution was adopted providing that:
“Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of all circuit courts in this State elected or appointed after July 1, 1955, shall at the time of such election or appointment be under 70 years of age and licensed to practice law in this State.”
Appellant comments upon Attorney General, ex rel. Cook, v. O’Neill, 280 Mich 649, as follows:
“Is the instant case governed by Attorney General, ex rel. Cook, v. O’Neill, 280 Mich 649? The trial court so held, but it is submitted that the trial court failed to observe the distinction between constitutional offices and legislative offices. The O’Neill Case is obviously distinguishable in that it involved a constitutional office. It is precedent only as to constitutional courts; viz., Supreme, circuit, probate and justice courts. This case does not involve a constitutional court but rather a legislative court, created by the legislature pursuant to an explicit constitutional mandate as above set forth.”
The controlling facts in the O’Neill Case, supra, were not in dispute. On November 3, 1936, James E. O’Neill was elected circuit' judge of the tenth judicial circuit. Mr. O’Neill was admitted to the bar of Michigan August 7, 1928, on motion in the circuit court for the county of Saginaw, but did not file with the clerk of the Supreme Court his affidavit showing his name, residence, citizenship, and the court by which he was admitted to practice in this [684]*684State, as required by CL 1929, § 13578, until March 10, 1932.
In the O’Neill opinion, this Court commented on constitutional provisions, and stated (pp 653, 654):
“The theory of our government, both Federal and State, is one of separation of powers. * * * ‘Under our Constitution “all political power is inherent in the people.” ’ ”
On this point the Court quoted (p 654) from 6 RCL, Constitutional Law, § 157, pp 157, 158, as follows:
“ ‘The judiciary is an independent department of the State government, deriving none of its judicial power from either of the other departments. * * * In a general way, the courts possess the entire body of judicial power. The other departments cannot properly assume to exercise any part of this power; it cannot be taken away by a legislative action, nor is the legislature permitted to interfere with the courts in the performance of their duties.’ ”
In the O’Neill Case, supra, the Court also said (pp 656, 658):
“In People, ex rel. Hughes, v. May, 3 Mich 598, 610, we find this statement:
“ ‘We concede, to the fullest extent, that it is not in the power of the judiciary, or even the legislature, to establish arbitrary exclusions from office, or annex qualifications thereto, when the Constitution has not established such exclusions nor annexed such qualifications.’
“While the statement above quoted was dicta at the time of its writing, yet it represents our views on the question involved in the instant case. * * *
“The conclusion is inevitable that under the division of powers in the Michigan Constitution the ju[685]*685diciary is an independent department of the' State government and the legislature has no power to annex qualifications for circuit judges not found in the Constitution.”
In the concurring opinion in the O’Neill Case, supra, written by Justice Potter, the following from Mechem, Public Offices and Officers (1st ed), § 65, p 22, was set forth;
“ ‘It is entirely competent for the people, in framing their governments, to declare what shall be the qualifications which shall entitle one to hold and exercise a public office, and in many of the Constitutions this has been done with more or less certainty and precision. Constitutional provisions, which are exclusive in their nature, are, of course, .supreme, and it is not within the power of legislatures to supersede, evade or alter them.’ ”
Justice Potter also quoted (p 664) from a case which we believe is important in considering the present case, namely, Sheehan v. Scott, 145 Cal 684, 687 (79 P 350), wherein it was said:
“It is not contended by the appellant that the Constitution contains any express inhibition upon the legislature against prescribing qualifications for the officers whose appointment or election it may authorize, but he contends that the designation in the Constitution of the qualifications of certain officers named therein creates an implication that in all other cases no other qualification shall be required than those of an elector. It may be admitted that the legislature can neither increase nor diminsh the qualifications which the Constitution has prescribed for eligibility to any of the offices created by that instrument; but for all offices which the legislature may authorize or establish, either by virtue of express authority therefor in the Constitution itself, or by virtue of its general legislative authority, it may prescribe such qualifications as in its judgment will best [686]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[682]*682Kelly, J.
Defendant was elected judge of the recorder’s court for the city of Cadillac for a 4-year term, commencing January 1,1954. An information in the nature of quo warranto was filed, challenging-defendant’s right to hold the office because he was not a qualified attorney authorized and licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan, as required by Local Acts 1895, No 429.
The main question presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding and entering-judgment that:
“The legislature could not, by Local Acts 1895, No 429, lawfully attach qualifications to the office of judge of recorder’s court when no such qualifications for judicial office were required by the State Constitution of 1850 and that to attempt to do so would be an encroachment by the legislature upon the powers and functions of the judiciary.”
The State Constitution of 1850, art 6, § 1, - provided :
“The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court, in circuit courts in probate courts, and in justices of the peace. Municipal courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction may be estabished by the legislature in cities.”
Appellee states:
“We believe this case is governed by the case of Attorney General, ex rel. Cook, v. O’Neill, 280 Mich 649. * * *
“The O’Neill Case set the pattern, we believe, that the judicial department of the government, or any of its branches or courts cannot be dictated to by the legislature; that the judicial department is a separate department of government under the doctrine of separation of powers. * * * Therefore, it seems inescapable that the O’Neill Case controls the case at bar in its pronouncement that the legisla[683]*683ture cannot set up the qualification that one must be a lawyer to hold judicial office (unless and until the constitutional framework is amended to so provide).”
In this regard it is worthy of note that at the biennial spring election of April 4, 1955, an amendment to the Constitution was adopted providing that:
“Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of all circuit courts in this State elected or appointed after July 1, 1955, shall at the time of such election or appointment be under 70 years of age and licensed to practice law in this State.”
Appellant comments upon Attorney General, ex rel. Cook, v. O’Neill, 280 Mich 649, as follows:
“Is the instant case governed by Attorney General, ex rel. Cook, v. O’Neill, 280 Mich 649? The trial court so held, but it is submitted that the trial court failed to observe the distinction between constitutional offices and legislative offices. The O’Neill Case is obviously distinguishable in that it involved a constitutional office. It is precedent only as to constitutional courts; viz., Supreme, circuit, probate and justice courts. This case does not involve a constitutional court but rather a legislative court, created by the legislature pursuant to an explicit constitutional mandate as above set forth.”
The controlling facts in the O’Neill Case, supra, were not in dispute. On November 3, 1936, James E. O’Neill was elected circuit' judge of the tenth judicial circuit. Mr. O’Neill was admitted to the bar of Michigan August 7, 1928, on motion in the circuit court for the county of Saginaw, but did not file with the clerk of the Supreme Court his affidavit showing his name, residence, citizenship, and the court by which he was admitted to practice in this [684]*684State, as required by CL 1929, § 13578, until March 10, 1932.
In the O’Neill opinion, this Court commented on constitutional provisions, and stated (pp 653, 654):
“The theory of our government, both Federal and State, is one of separation of powers. * * * ‘Under our Constitution “all political power is inherent in the people.” ’ ”
On this point the Court quoted (p 654) from 6 RCL, Constitutional Law, § 157, pp 157, 158, as follows:
“ ‘The judiciary is an independent department of the State government, deriving none of its judicial power from either of the other departments. * * * In a general way, the courts possess the entire body of judicial power. The other departments cannot properly assume to exercise any part of this power; it cannot be taken away by a legislative action, nor is the legislature permitted to interfere with the courts in the performance of their duties.’ ”
In the O’Neill Case, supra, the Court also said (pp 656, 658):
“In People, ex rel. Hughes, v. May, 3 Mich 598, 610, we find this statement:
“ ‘We concede, to the fullest extent, that it is not in the power of the judiciary, or even the legislature, to establish arbitrary exclusions from office, or annex qualifications thereto, when the Constitution has not established such exclusions nor annexed such qualifications.’
“While the statement above quoted was dicta at the time of its writing, yet it represents our views on the question involved in the instant case. * * *
“The conclusion is inevitable that under the division of powers in the Michigan Constitution the ju[685]*685diciary is an independent department of the' State government and the legislature has no power to annex qualifications for circuit judges not found in the Constitution.”
In the concurring opinion in the O’Neill Case, supra, written by Justice Potter, the following from Mechem, Public Offices and Officers (1st ed), § 65, p 22, was set forth;
“ ‘It is entirely competent for the people, in framing their governments, to declare what shall be the qualifications which shall entitle one to hold and exercise a public office, and in many of the Constitutions this has been done with more or less certainty and precision. Constitutional provisions, which are exclusive in their nature, are, of course, .supreme, and it is not within the power of legislatures to supersede, evade or alter them.’ ”
Justice Potter also quoted (p 664) from a case which we believe is important in considering the present case, namely, Sheehan v. Scott, 145 Cal 684, 687 (79 P 350), wherein it was said:
“It is not contended by the appellant that the Constitution contains any express inhibition upon the legislature against prescribing qualifications for the officers whose appointment or election it may authorize, but he contends that the designation in the Constitution of the qualifications of certain officers named therein creates an implication that in all other cases no other qualification shall be required than those of an elector. It may be admitted that the legislature can neither increase nor diminsh the qualifications which the Constitution has prescribed for eligibility to any of the offices created by that instrument; but for all offices which the legislature may authorize or establish, either by virtue of express authority therefor in the Constitution itself, or by virtue of its general legislative authority, it may prescribe such qualifications as in its judgment will best [686]*686accord with public policy or subserve the interests of those affected thereby.”
Another case set forth in the concurring opinion which must be considered in determining the intent of the O’Neill decision by this Court, was People, ex rel. Hoyne, v. McCormick, 261 Ill 413, 421 (103 NE 1053, Ann Cas 1915A, 338), from which Justice Potter quoted (p 666) as follows:
“ ‘There is a distinction between offices created by the constitution and those created by statute. Where an office is created by statute it is wholly within the power of the legislature creating it. The length of term and mode of appointment may be altered at pleasure and the office may be abolished altogether.’ ”
The O’Neill Case, supra, 658, decided that “the legislature has no power to annex qualifications for circuit judges not found in the Constitution.” That decision, however, did not deal with the problem presented in this appeal, namely: The legislative right to establish qualifications that one must be a lawyer to hold the judicial office, judge of the recorder’s court for the city of Cadillac.
An interesting comment in regard to judicial power and the constitutional grant to the legislature to limit the powers and duties of the probate courts and the justice courts, but not the circuit courts, is found in Nichols v. Judge of Superior Court of Grand Rapids, 130 Mich 187, 193,194, as follows:
“The Constitution of 1835 provided that ‘the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such other courts as the legislature may from time to time establish.’ Const 1835, art 6, § 1. The people were dissatisfied with the courts organized by the legislature, and, in the adoption of the new Constitution, made an important change by providing that:
[687]*687“ ‘The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court, in circuit courts, in probate courts, and in justices of the peace. Municipal courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction may be established by the legislature in cities.’ Const 1850, art 6, § 1.
“Thus the unlimited power to create courts, given by the Constitution of 1835, was taken away by the new Constitution, and the legislature was limited to the creation of ‘municipal courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction.’ The reason for this important change in the organization of the courts is stated in Streeter v. Paton, 7 Mich 341.
“By sections 13 and 18 of article 6, the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the probate and justices’ courts may be limited and prescribed by the legislature. No such power is found as to the circuit courts or the Supreme Court.”
By mandatory language the Constitution (1908) requires the establishment of circuit courts. See Kates v. Reading, 254 Mich 158. The municipal courts are not created by the Constitution, but only authorized and permitted, and said courts derive all their powers from the legislature. See Dunham v. Tilma, 191 Mich 688.
Appellant calls to this Court’s attention “that this State has a long history of legislatively created offices, including judgeships, in which qualifications have been established by the legislature without question.” This statement is sustained when we consider the following acts: PA 1879, No 76 (CL 1948, § 729.1 et seq. [Stat Ann § 27.3711 et seq.] ), creating a police court for the city of Grand Rapids; PA 1911, No 299 (CL 1948 and CLS 1954, §730.1 et seq. [Stat Ann and Stat Ann 1955 Cum Supp § 27.3751 et seq.] ), regarding justices of the peace in cities of 80,000 population; PA 1913, No 353 (CL 1948, § 729.101 et seq. [Stat Ann § 27.3741 et seq.]), [688]*688regarding police courts in cities from 125,000 to 200,-000 population; PA 1933, No 269 (CL 1948 and CLS 1954, § 730.101 et seq., as amended by PA 1955, No 75 [Stat-Ann and Stat Ann 1955 Cum Supp § 27.3831 et seq.]), originally as to municipal courts in cities from 100,000 to 160,000 population; and PA 1929, No 260 (CL 1948 and CLS 1954, .§ 728.1 et seq., as amended by PA 1955, Nos 105, 169 [Stat Ann and Stat Ann 1955 Cum Supp §27.3651 et seq.]), as to common pleas courts in cities having a population of over 250,000.
We reiterate as controlling in this decision the principles of law set forth in the California case of Sheehan v. Scott, supra, 687, that:
“It may be admitted that the legislature can neither increase nor diminish the qualifications which the constitution has prescribed for eligibility to any of the offices created by that instrument; but for all offices which the legislature may authorize or establish, either by virtue of express authority therefor in the constitution itself, or by virtue of its general legislative authority, it may. prescribe such qualifications as in its judgment will best accord with public-policy .or subserve the interests of those affected thereby.”
The trial court erred in finding that the legislature could not by Local Acts 1895, No 429, constitutionally and legally attach the qualification above discussed.
The trial court and appellee contend that the home-rule act (PA 1909, No 279 [CL 1948, § 117.1 et seq. (Stat Ann 1949 Rev § 5.2071 et seq.) ] gave the electors of the city of Cadillac the right to amend the charter and delete the qualifications in, question as to the office of municipal judge.
The home-rule charter of the city of Cadillac, adopted by the electors .December 9, 1913, followed [689]*689the legislative charter of 1895 and contained a provision (chap 20, §1) requiring the recorder’s court judge to be an admitted, practicing attorney of the city. This section was amended on April 3, 1933, by a 3-to-1 vote of the electors, deleting the requirement that the recorder’s court judge be an admitted, practicing attorney, and providing that:
“Such court shall be entitled ‘the recorder’s court of the city of Cadillac,’ and shall have such general powers*- and such powers and jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters, as are by the laws of the State of Michigan conferred upon justices of the peace of townships.”
The amendment adopted April 3, 1933, was not challenged for over 21 years, and both attorney and layman have served in the office of recorder’s court .judge since 1933.
In Gallup v. City of Saginaw, 170 Mich 195, 199, 200, this Court said:
“The framers of the Constitution, in departing from the old order of things and providing for what is popularly known as ‘home rule’ or ‘freeholder’s charters,’ thereby granting autonomy to municipalities, did not deem it wise to make the constitutional provision on the subject self-executing, but required a preliminary, general law to be passed, outlining and defining the course to be followed, witbin certain limits, delineating the sphere of municipal action in comprehensive terms. The new' system is. one of general grant of rights and powers, subject only to certain enumerated restrictions, instead of the former method of only granting enumerated rights and powers definitely specified. We must assume the act was passed with, that intent and construe it accordingly.”
This Court, held in Bostedor v. City of Eaton Rapids, 273 Mich 426, that the provisions of the home-[690]*690rule act could not be abrogated by charter provisions.
The restrictions against electors’ right of amending the charter in regard to municipal courts and the legislative insistence that the laws creating municipal courts should remain in force and effect, is set forth in section 28 of the home-rule act, which provides:
“In all cities now organized, which may hereafter amend or revise their charters under the provisions of this act, all of the provisions of the present law, whether general or special, applying to any such city relating to the qualifications, term of office, powers, jurisdiction, duties and compensation of justices of the peace and constables therein, and the conduct of all proceedings, suits and prosecutions before such justices of the peace and appeals therefrom, and all laws creating municipal courts and the proceedings thereof in any such city, shall remain in full force and effect, except as to the time and manner of nomination and elections of judges, justices and court officers.” (CL 1948, §117.28 [Stat Ann 1949 Rev §5.2107].)
The above provision of section 28 was referred to in Attorney General v. Bolton, 206 Mich 403, 411, 412, wherein this Court stated:
“In view of the purpose and language of the Constitution, we regard the words employed in this section of the general law as meaning that cities may determine the time and manner of nominating and electing justices of the peace.”
Section 28 of the home-rule act did give to the cities the right to determine the time and manner of nominating and electing judges, but it did not' give to the cities the right to establish qualifications contra to the qualifications established by the legislature.
[691]*691The provision of Local Acts 1895, No 429,- requiring the judge of the recorder’s court of Cadillac to he a qualified attorney was not deleted by the electorate’s amendment to the city charter on April 3,1933.
This proceeding was brought by the prosecuting’ attorney of Wexford county in the circuit court of Wexford county, under PA 1915, No 314, ch 38, § 1 (CL 1948, § 638.1 [Stat Ann § 27.2315] ), which provides :
“Any information in the nature of a quo warranto may be filed in the Spreme Court, either in term time or vacation, by the attorney general, against individuals, upon his own relation, or upon the relation of any private party, and without applying to such court for leave, in either of the following cases;
“1. When any person shall usurp, intrude into, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office, civil or military, or any franchise within this State; or any office in any corporation created by the authority of this State.”
Sections 26 and 27 of chapter 38 of the judicature act, permitting such proceedings in the circuit court, provide:
“See. 26. An information in the nature of a quo warranto may be filed in the several circuit courts of this State, as well as in the Supreme Court, and all of the provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to such proceedings in such circuit courts, and all powers conferred upon the several judges of the Supreme Court by this chapter are hereby conferred upon the judges of the several circuit courts respectively: Provided, That no such information shall be filed and allowed by any such circuit court against any judge of the Supreme Court or any State officer.” (CL 1948, § 638.26 [Stat Ann § 27.2340]. )
“Sec. 27. Informations under this chapter may be filed by the prosecuting attorney of the proper county, on his own relation, or that of any citizen of the [692]*692county, without leave of the court, or, by any citizen of the county by special leave of the court or a judge thereof.” CL 1948, § 638.27 [Stat Ann ..§ 27.2341].)
We do not agree with the trial court that this action could only be brought by proceedings against the city of Cadillac within 30 days after the charter amendment adopted in 1933. The court’s contention in this regard would have been correct if the proceedings involved “material fraud or error * * * committed at any election in such county,” as provided by CL 1948, §§638.28, 638.29 (Stat Ann §§ 27.2342,-27.2343).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in accordance with this opinion.
Dethmers, C. J., and Sharpe, Boyles, and,Carr, JJ., concurred with Kelly, J.