
    PANTLIND HOTEL COMPANY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.
    On Rehearing.
    Opinion of the Court.
    1. Taxation — Assessment—State Tax Commission — Evidence.
    Plaintiff taxpayer should be granted rehearing by State tax commission and a recomputation of valuation and assessment of its property where record disclosed commission’s findings to be unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.
    Dissenting Opinion.
    T. M. Kavanagh and Adams, JJ.
    2. Taxation — State Tax Commission — Evidence.
    
      Decisions of Court of Appeals denying leave to appeal from State tax commission valuation of personal property of taxpayer and of State tax commission setting valuation on real estate comprising hotel properties of taxpayer are affirmed on rehearing where taxpayer failed to show fraud, errors of law, or application of wrong principles and where there was testimony to support commission findings.
    
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1,2] 51 Am Jur, Taxation § 770 et seq.
    
    Appeals from Court of Appeals.
    Submitted June 7, 1967.
    (Calendar No. 5, Docket Nos. 51,454, 51,-554.)
    Decided April 1, 1968.
    Submitted on rehearing November 13, 1968.
    (Calendar No. 7, Docket Nos. 51,454, 51,554.)
    Decided on rehearing May 5, 1969.
    Rehearing denied July 31, 1969.
    Pantlind Hotel Company, a Michigan corporation, taxpayer, appealed its personal property assessment by defendant City of Grand Rapids for 1965 to the State Tax Commission. Assessment affirmed by commission. Taxpayer’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Taxpayer appeals to Supreme Court by leave granted. (Docket No. 51,454.)
    Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
    Pantlind Hotel Company appealed its 1964 real property assessment by defendant City of Grand Rapids to the State Tax Commission. Assessment set by State Tax Commission after supplementary hearing pursuant to order of the Court of Appeals in Pantlind Hotel Company v. State Tax Commission, 3 Mich App 170. Taxpayer appealed to the Court of Appeals, and appeals to Supreme Court prior to decision in the Court of Appeals pursuant to GCR 1963, 852. (Docket No. 51,554.) Consolidated with Docket No. 51,454. Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
    
      Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn (John Sklar, of counsel), for Pantlind Hotel Company.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, T. Carl Holbrook and Richard R. Roesch, Assistant Attorneys General, for Michigan State Tax Commission.
    
      Steven L. Dykema, City Attorney, and George 0. Walters, Assistant City Attorney, for the City of Grand Rapids.
   On Rehearing.

Dethmbrs, J.

For the reasons set forth in the opinion of Mr. Justice Souris in this case on its original hearing (1968), 380 Mich 390, and my opinion on rehearing in Fisher-New Center Company v. State Tax Commission, 381 Mich 713, in which the record and proceedings before the State tax commission are so markedly similar to those in the instant case, I would reverse and remand for rehearing before the State tax commission in accordance with the hearing procedures suggested in the Souris opinions in this case and in Fisher-New Center Company v. State Tax Commission (1969), 380 Mich 340.

Costs to plaintiff.

T. E. Brennan, C. J., and Kelly, Black, JJ., concurred with Dethmers, J.

T. M. Kavanagh, J.

(dissenting). In this cause rehearing was granted May 6, 1968, Justices T. M. Kavanagh, Adams, and T. E. Brennan dissenting. For the reasons set forth in the majority opinion of this Court in Pantlind Hotel Company v. State Tax Commission (1968), 380 Mich 390, and in the opinion in Allied Supermarkets, Inc., v. State Tax Commission (1969), 381 Mich 693, 696, we should affirm, on rehearing, the decisions (1) of the Court of Appeals with regard to the personal property assessment and (2) of the State tax commission with regard to the real property assessment.

Appellees should have costs of rehearing.

Adams, J., concurred with T. M. Kavanagh, J.

T. Gr. Kavanagh, J., took no part in the decision of this case.  