
    OAKLAND COUNTY v. BICE
    Appeal and Error — Parties—Legal Standing — Necessity of Review.
    Legal questions raised by a party with no standing in the litigation need not be decided on appeal; therefore where the record sustained a trial court’s finding that defendants did not own money which plaintiff county had seized under a grand jury subpoena during a judicial investigation into illegal gaming operations, the Court of Appeals would not decide issues raised by defendants on appeal.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 178-185.
    Appeal from Oakland, Frederick C. Ziem, J.
    Submitted Division 2 February 11, 1970, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 6,411.)
    Decided April 9, 1970.
    Leave to appeal granted July 16, 1970.
    383 Mich 805.
    Statutory action by Oakland County to confiscate money seized under a grand jury subpoena during judicial investigation into illegal gaming operations in that county. Anna Bice and Shoefard Bice moved to intervene and were made codefendants. The United States of America was granted leave to intervene as third-party defendant. Judgment that the money be delivered to the United States of America. Defendants Anna Bice and Shoefard Bice appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      
      Jerome K. Barry, for plaintiff.
    
      Richard G. Ghosid, for defendants Bice.
    
      Johnny M. Walters, United States Assistant Attorney General, Lee A. Jackson, Grombie J. D. Garrett, Paul M. Ginsburg, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, for third-party defendant.
    Before: Quinn, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Fitzgerald, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

This action was commenced pursuant to CLS 1961, §§ 750.308 and 750.308a (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §§ 28.540 and 28.540[1]) to confiscate $35,000 seized under a grand jury subpoena during a judicial investigation into alleged illegal gaming operations in Oakland County. The judgment below awarded the money to the United States of America in satisfaction of a tax lien against one Roy L. Clark.

This appeal of the Bices raises many serious legal questions with respect to the proceedings here reviewed. However, the trial court found that neither of the Bices owned the $35,000 involved, and the record before us sustains that finding. Bices had no standing in this litigation, and we find it unnecessary to decide the issues raised by them on this appeal.

Affirmed but without costs.  