Thomas v. Morton Salt Co.

On Rehearing.

Fead, J.

On rehearing, I find no occasion to change my former opinion, but, perhaps, something should be added to it.

Counsel for plaintiff contend that the question of estoppel to deny constitutionality of Act No. 162, Pub. Acts 1927 (see 2 Comp. Laws’ 1929, § 8413), cannot be considered because it was not raised in circuit court. The estoppel is not of the kind which must be formally pleaded, the question was raised by this court, to avoid conflict with Cooley v. Boice Bros., 245 Mich. 325, and is properly here. 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13537; Auditor General v. Bolt, 147 Mich. 283.

If…