52 N.W. 731 (Mich. 1892), Beecher v. City of Detroit

Citation:52 N.W. 731, 92 Mich. 268
Opinion Judge:GRANT, J.
Attorney:[92 Mich. 269] Ervin Palmer and Henry M. Cheever, for appellant. Edward Minock, ( John J. Speed, of counsel,) for defendant.
Judge Panel:MORSE, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, J., concurred. MCGRATH and LONG, JJ., did not sit.
Case Date:June 10, 1892
Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 731

52 N.W. 731 (Mich. 1892)

92 Mich. 268




Supreme Court of Michigan

June 10, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county, in chancery; GEORGE GARTNER, Judge.

Action by Luther Beecher against the city of Detroit. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

[92 Mich. 269] Ervin Palmer and Henry M. Cheever, for appellant.

Edward Minock, ( John J. Speed, of counsel,) for defendant.


The bill in this cause is filed by the complainant to restrain defendant from collecting a tax assessed upon his lands for the purpose of paying a portion of the damages awarded in opening and extending Eleventh street, in said city. The proceedings were instituted under Act 124, Pub. Acts 1883. Complainant appealed from the confirmation of the award to this court. The proceedings were affirmed, except as to three parcels, and a new appraisement ordered as to them. The proper proceedings were taken under this order, and another appraisement had as to these three parcels. The total of the two appraisals was $11,590. The case will be found in 75 Mich. 455, 42 N.W. 986. The [92 Mich. 270] total amount of these appraisals was paid by the city, and received by the complainant. He is therefore foreclosed from raising any objections to the regularity of the proceedings. After those proceedings were concluded, the common council created a special taxing district upon the theory that the real estate within such district was benefited by the improvement, and fixing the amount of such benefit at the sum of $6,000, which was ordered assessed and levied upon the several parcels of land in proportion, as near as might be, to the advantage which each parcel was deemed to have acquired by such improvement. The board of assessors of the city were also directed to proceed to make an assessment roll in conformity with the requirements of the charter relating to special assessments, for collecting the expense of public improvements, and to assess each parcel, as near as might be, in accordance with the amount of benefit to be derived from the improvement. The board of assessors performed their duty, and gave notice, as required by law, that the assessment roll was completed, and would remain in the office of the assessor from the 13th to the 27th of May. Of these proceedings complainant had notice, and it does not appear that he made any objection...

To continue reading