view raw text
Hazel Park Proceeds With Plans for Meeting Supreme Courts Decision in Favor of Track Is Unanimous DETROIT, Mich., May 5.— Following the State Supreme Courts decision yesterday ordering racing commissioner James H. Inglis to assign it racing dates, the Hazel Park Racing Association today was proceeding with plans for its 57-day meeting opening August 6 and running through October 10. The State Supreme Courts decision in favor of Hazel Park was unanimous. The dates had been previously awarded Hazel Park by Inglis but not -confirmed. Inglis had requested that holders of 180,000 shares of stock in the association I dispose of their holdings on the grounds that through relationship they were connected with persons he classified as "undesirable. Justice Leland Carr wrote the decision in which the entire court agreed to repudiate all of Inglis reasons for not assigning dates to the track. The court pointed out that the track had conducted racing for the past four years under licenses granted to it and that Inglis did not claim that the public was harmed as a result of such operation. The decision went on to state: "Neither is it claimed that the stockholders ... referred to in the conditions of acceptance of the application for the 1953 season as imposed by the defendant Inglis are active in the management or that any of them are directing its policies and activities. "It is claimed and not disputed that the plaintiff the track has sought to persuade the stockholders in question, or at least some of them, to dispose of their stock and that such efforts have met with refusals. "Plaintiff corporation, which is not itself accused of improper conduct of any kind inimical to the welfare of the people of this state, cannot compel minority stockholders in question to dispose of their property. "Under these circumstances it must be said that the statute, under which the defendant is functioning does not authorize him to demand compliance with the conditions imposed on plaintiff as a necessary prerequisite to the granting of a license.* In summing up the case, the court said: "Without legal justification the defendant Inglis has put himself in the position of declining, without a formal order to issue a license to which the plaintiff track la entitled."
