Auditor General v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 05 December 1890
• Citation: 83 Mich. 471,47 N.W. 442
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: AUDITOR GENERAL v. REYNOLDS. SAME v. ROBERTS.

47 N.W. 442

83 Mich. 471

AUDITOR GENERAL v. REYNOLDS.

SAME v. ROBERTS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 5, 1890

Appeals from circuit court, Mackinac county; J. H. STEERE, Judge.

James McNamara, for appellants.

James J. Brown, for appellees.

CHAMPLIN C.J.

The bills of complaint were filed in these two cases to enforce collection of taxes assessed upon certain lands returned as delinquent for the year 1887 in the townships of Newton, St Ignace, and Moran, in the county of Mackinac. Certain constitutional objections were raised to the law under which the taxes were assessed, and the collection thereof is sought to be enforced, but as such objections have been passed upon and the constitutionality of the law sustained, in the case of Auditor General v. Stiles, ante, 241, (at the present term,) such objections need not be noticed. We think it was competent for the legislature to provide for the sale of land for delinquent taxes which were assessed and returned prior to the year 1889, under the provisions of the act of 1889. (Pub. Acts Mich. 1889, No. 195.) A new remedy is provided, under which the rights of the tax-payer are protected, and he is given a day in court, where he may allege and show the invalidity of the tax. End. Interp. St.�� 285, 287.

In the case against Roberts all of the taxes were rejected except the state and county tax, and in the Reynolds Case the township, highway, rejected taxes, and bridge taxes were rejected by the circuit judge, and we shall notice only such objections as relate to the taxes not rejected. The auditor general did not appeal. The objections to the state and county taxes are the following: (1) The state and county taxes which are sought to be established as a lien upon said lands are invalid, for the reason that no action was taken by the board of supervisors in the year 1887 to apportion the same between the several townships, nor between the townships and city of said county of Mackinac, and no such apportionment was made. (2) No authority was given by the board of supervisors for the year 1887 for levying any state and county taxes upon said lands, nor upon any lands in said county. (3) No equalization of valuation of the real estate in said county was made by said board of supervisors during the year 1887. (4) The said board of supervisors for the year 1887 voted to the sheriff of said county for said year a salary of $200, and to the register of deeds a salary of $200, without any warrant or authority of law, which items were embraced in the tax-levy made or attempted to be made upon the lands for the taxes of 1887. (5) The board of supervisors had no authority to order the assessment of the rejected taxes for the township of Newton.

We shall pass only upon the third objection. The testimony is all documentary except the oral testimony of one witness. The defendants sought to show that there was no equalization of valuation of the several tax-rolls of the county by the board of supervisors, and also that there was no apportionment of the state and county taxes among the several townships of the county, by introducing in evidence "the record of the proceedings of the board of supervisors of Mackinac county for the year 1887, commencing on page 94, and continuing continuously to and including part of page 101." The record introduced commences at the afternoon session on Thursday, October 20, 1887, and concludes on Saturday October 22, 1887. Michael Hoban was sworn as a witness, and he testified that he was the clerk of Mackinac county during the year 1887. He kept the minutes of the proceedings of...