26 Mich. 245 (Mich. 1872), Pillsbury v. Humphrey
|Citation:||26 Mich. 245|
|Opinion Judge:||Graves, J.|
|Party Name:||Oliver P. Pillsbury and others v. William Humphrey, Auditor General, and another|
|Attorney:||Hughes, O'Brien & Smiley, for complainants. Dwight May, Attorney General, for defendant.|
|Case Date:||November 23, 1872|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Michigan|
Heard October 31, 1872
Appeal in chancery from Mecosta circuit.
Decree affirmed, with costs.
The circuit court for the county of Mecosta, in chancery, heard this cause on pleadings and proofs, and dismissed the bill, and the complainants appealed. The final object of the suit is, to prevent a sale of the lands described in the bill for the non-payment of taxes charged against them on the roll for 1869. The lands affected lie in six specified townships in Mecosta county, and the bill states that each parcel was assessed for state, county, town, highway and school taxes. The total sum against each parcel is set forth in round numbers, without distinguishing in any way, the different taxes.
Several irregularities are imputed, but the most conspicuous, and those mainly relied on, do not relate to the
state and county taxes. The chief objection to the latter is, that the clerk of the board of supervisors did not make and deliver to the respective supervisors, the certificates of the amounts "apportioned to be assessed upon the property of each township, for state, county, township, fractional school district, and other purposes," as provided by section thirty-two, of the law approved April 6, 1869: Sess. L. 1869, p. 325. But it appears very clearly by the evidence, that certificates were in fact made by the clerk and given to the supervisors, and that these certificates covered the state and county taxes. They, however, did not embrace the township, school, and other taxes. It is supposed by counsel for complainants, that the officers consulted the act of 1853, and that the omission in the certificates was caused by their not attending to the change effected by the law of 1869; because, by the corresponding provision in the act of 1853, which the regulation of 1869 superseded, the certificates to be delivered by the clerk of the board of supervisors to the several supervisors, were required to include only the taxes for state and county purposes, and the certificates issued were conformable to that provision. This explanation is probably the true one...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP