
    TESCHKE v. OAKLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
    1. Constitutional Law—Due Process—Notice—Publication.
    Public securities validation act which provided for notice to known parties in interest as defendants solely by statutory publication failed to provide for adequate notice to meet the requirements of the due process clauses of the Pederal and State Constitutions (US Const, Am 14; Mich Const 1908, art 2, §16; PA 1959, No 161, §7).
    2. Counties—Public Works—Special Assessments—Notice—Publication in Newspaper.
    County public works act providing for the establishment of special assessment districts for water supply system or sewage disposal system in a proceeding for which the only notice to> persons within the district is by publication in a newspaper held, unconstitutional for failure to provide a proper notice,, being a denial of due process of law (US Const, Am 14; Mich. Const 1908, art 2, § 16; PA 1957, No 185, § 24).
    3. Statutes—Notice of Hearing—Known Parties in Interest.
    Judge- or administrator-imposed mailing of notice of a hearing in an action affecting one’s property does not cure the invalidity of the statute providing for such proceeding which does not require that personal service be given to known parties in interest in sueli property (US Const, Am 14; Mich Const 1908, art 2, §16; PA 1957, No 185, §24; PA 1959,. No 161, § 7).
    4. Costs—Public Question—Validity of County Public Works-Act.
    No costs are allowed in suit to invalidate county public works aetr a public question being involved (PA 1957, No 185).
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1, 2] 39 Am Jur, Notiee and Notices §§ 9, 21.
    
       12 Am Jur, Constitutional Law § 573.
    
       14 Am Jur, Costs § 37.
    
      Appeal from Oakland; Dondero (Stanton G-.), J.
    Submitted October 18, 1961.
    (Docket No. 98, Calendar No. 49,190.)
    Decided March 19, 1962.
    Rehearing denied May 17, 1962.
    Bill by Harry G. Teschke and other taxpayers, as :a class action, against Oakland County Department of Public Works and the Township of Farmington to invalidate assessment in special district. Cross bill by defendants under public securities validation act to ratify proceedings.. Publication made and order to show cause served by mail on known property •owners. State of Michigan, appearing specially, moved to dismiss cross bill. Motion denied. State >of Michigan appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    
      Robert P. Allen (Dickinson, Wright, McKean <& 'Cudlip, of counsel), for defendant and cross plaintiff 'County of Oakland.
    
      Paul L. Adams, Attorney General, Joseph B. Bilitske, Solicitor General, and Eugene Krasicky, Assistant Attorney General, for cross defendant State of Michigan.
   Kavanagh, J.

The questions raised in this case .are identical with the first 2 questions answered in the opinion of this Court today released in Ridenour v. County of Bay, 366 Mich 225. The opinion in Ridenour, supra, disposes of the questions in this •case.

The order denying the motion to dismiss by the .attorney general is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court for entry of an order dismissing the cross bill of complaint.

A public question being involved, no costs' are allowed.

Dethmers, C. J., and Carr, Kelly, Black, Souris^ and Otis M. Smith, JJ., concurred.

Adams, J., took no part in the decision of this case.  