"[T]he practical working of the elective system necessarily requires that those who abstain from voting be considered as acquiescing in the result declared by a majority of those who exercise the suffrage." Id.; see also Wilcox v. Bd. of Commrs. of Sinking Fund of Detroit, 262 Mich. 699, 705, 247 N.W. 923 (1933) ("it is contrary to our system of government to count electors on a question who are not sufficiently interested to vote"). Accordingly, the court in Munce adhered to the rule that "where a statute provides for a vote of 'a majority of the voters,' 'a majority of the legal voters,' 'a majority of the qualified voters,' etc., all that is required is a majority of those actually voting, unless a contrary legislative intention and purpose is very clearly expressed."
Shearer v. Board of Supervisors of Bay County, 128 Mich. 552. A somewhat similar question was before the Court in Wilcox v. Board of Commissioners of Sinking Fund of City of Detroit, 262 Mich. 699, in considering a constitutional amendment limiting the amount of taxes assessable in any 1 year in connection with local municipal financing. The Court said:
Substantially the same principle has been announced in a number of other cases, all comparatively recent. Continental Mutual Ins. Co. v. Cochrane, 89 Colo. 462, 4 P.2d 308; Adams v. Slavin, 225 Ky. 135, 7 S.W.2d 836; Ex parte Hearst Committee, 245 Ky. 132, 53 S.W. 211; Perry v. City, 160 Tenn. 102, 22 S.W.2d 359; Cummings v. Shipp, 156 Tenn. 595, 3 S.W.2d 1062; Harrell v. Mortgage Co., 161 Tenn. 646, 32 S.W.2d 1023; 162 Tenn. 371, 36 S.W.2d 888; Wilcox v. Board of Commissioners, 262 Mich. 699, 247 N.W. 923 (rehearing denied in 262 Mich. 699, 249 N.W. 467); Jefferson County v. Fiscal Court, 259 Ky. 661, 83 S.W. 16; Ladner v. Siegel, 294 Pa. 368, 144 A. 274; Union Trust Co. v. Kaplan, 159 Misc. 1, 286 N.Y.S. 17; McDermott v. Bryer, 62 F.2d 297; Morton v. Construction Co., 36 Ariz. 97, 283 P. 281. We think, as held in City County of Denver v. Denver Land Company, supra, quoted above, that it would be improper for this court to make any announcement which would prejudice the rights of necessary parties absent herein.
(1) The grant of any power to tax, made by the state to municipal corporations, will be, according to the rule accepted by virtually all the authorities, construed with strictness. 16 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed), ยง 44.13, p 46; Remus v. City of Grand Rapids (1936), 274 Mich. 577; Wilcox v. Board of Commissioners of Sinking Fund of City of Detroit (1933), 262 Mich. 699; Whitney v. The Common Council of the Village of Hudson (1888), 69 Mich. 189. (2) An ordinance or resolution cannot be amended, repealed, or suspended by another act by a council of less dignity than the ordinance or resolution itself.