Auditor General v. Chandler

• Decision Date: 11 March 1896
• Citation: 108 Mich. 569,66 N.W. 482
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: AUDITOR GENERAL v. CHANDLER.

66 N.W. 482

108 Mich. 569

AUDITOR GENERAL v. CHANDLER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 11, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Cheboygan county, in chancery; Oscar Adams, Judge.

Proceeding by the auditor general to enforce the collection of taxes against lands owned by Merritt Chandler. Decree for defendant, and petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Victor D. Sprague (George W. Bell, of counsel) for appellant.

Shepherd & Reilley, for appellee.

MOORE J.

This proceeding is an attempt to collect the taxes, interest, and charges claimed to be due thereon, upon the lands of the defendant for the year 1893 and previous years. The auditor general's petition was filed July 26, 1895. July 27 1895, the court ordered a hearing on that petition, to be heard September 17, 1895, at the opening of court. September 13, 1895, proof of publication of the order and petition was filed. September 17, 1895, the defendant filed his objections to the taxes, only one of which is material to consider here. That is, "The board of review in the township did not hold its sessions at the time or times provided by law, and for that reason defendant was prevented from making his objection to them." The defendant did not serve any copy of his objections upon the prosecuting attorney prior to September 17th. Subsequent to the 17th of September the defendant was allowed, against the objection of counsel for petitioner, to file a supplemental list of the lands upon which were assessed the taxes he desired to contest. The counsel for the petitioner objected to the court's hearing the objections of the defendant: First, because he had not served a copy of them on the prosecuting attorney in season; second, because the supplemental list of lands filed by the defendant was filed too late. These objections were overruled, and upon a hearing the trial court held the taxes were improperly levied and were invalid. The record discloses that the township board of review met on the fourth Monday in May, as required by law; that no one appeared before it; that it then adjourned without day; that on Tuesday the defendant appeared at the house of the supervisor, the place where the board of review should have been in session, and learned that it had adjourned. One member of the board lived 2 1/2 miles away, and the other 12 miles away. It is claimed the supervisor offered to call the board together the following day, and was told by Mr Chandler that he had other engagements.

The first important question is, had the court the right to hear defendant's objections, when he had not served a copy of them upon the prosecuting attorney, as required by the law of 1895? The petition of the auditor general was filed, and the order of the court fixing a time for the hearing upon the petition was made, before the law of 1895 took effect. The order recited, as required by Act No. 206, Sess. Laws 1893 "that all persons interested in such lands or any part thereof, desiring to test the lien claimed thereon, *** shall file with the clerk *** their objections thereto, on or before the first day of the term." This was done by the defendant. The law of 1893 did not require a copy of the objections to be served upon the prosecuting attorney. The amendment of 1895 did not provide...