Auditor General v. Sparrow
| Decision Date | 05 April 1898 |
| Citation | 74 N.W. 881,116 Mich. 574 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | AUDITOR GENERAL v. SPARROW ET AL. |
Appeal from circuit court, Gogebic county, in chancery; Norman W Haire, Judge.
Proceeding by the auditor general against Edward W. Sparrow and others for the foreclosure of certain tax liens. From a decree in favor of complainant, defendants appeal. Modified.
Township and school taxes levied in pursuance of resolutions reciting the "failure" of the electors to vote such taxes were invalid, under 3 How.Ann.St. � 750; providing that whenever the electors shall "neglect or refuse" to vote money to defray township expenses, the township board may vote funds necessary for such purpose, and Pub.Acts 1891 No. 176, � 9, providing that in case the electors shall "neglect or refuse" to determine the amount of money to be raised for school purposes, the board of education shall determine such amount, where the records of the township failed to show that such questions were submitted to the electors at the annual meeting, though a highway tax raised under 3 How.Ann.St. �� 1354, 1355, was valid, as section 1356 permits the board to provide for such tax if such meeting does not do so.
Charles E. Miller, Pros. Atty., for complainant.
A. B. Eldredge and A. E. Miller, for defendants F. F. Ayer and others.
M. J. Sherwood, for other defendants.
Several answers were filed by various landowners in opposition to the proceedings instituted in the circuit court of Gogebic county, under the statute, by the auditor general, for the foreclosure of tax liens, and the collection of taxes for the year 1894; and the cause is brought to this court by appeal taken by all parties. As it is conceded that the tax for county roads is invalid, there is no occasion to discuss that subject. It is claimed that the entire county tax is invalid, for the want of a proper equalization and apportionment. The following quotation from the record will show the action taken by the board of supervisors.
This subject has been discussed in the case of Auditor General v. Ayer (Mich.) 67 N. W., at page 985, where the statute is quoted. Counsel contend that this statute requires that the record of the board of supervisors show the amount added to or deducted from the valuation of the real estate as assessed, and the aggregate valuation of the taxable real and personal property, etc., and that these things do not appear of record in this case. In the case of Auditor General v. Ayer, supra, we held that, if the amount added or deducted is ascertainable by computation, it is sufficient, and that it will be presumed that equalization is based on the valuation of real estate, if the contrary does not affirmatively appear. This case differs from that in this particular: There the real estate and personal property, as assessed, appeared in separate columns in the record. Here it did not, the aggregates as assessed and equalized were shown. The law does not in terms require either, but the omission to enter one or the other would have made it impossible to ascertain the amounts added or deducted. It is as easy to ascertain these amounts where the valuations of real and personal property as assessed and as equalized are entered in the aggregate as where separately stated, and the presumption is the same. It is contended, however, that it affirmatively appeared upon the trial, by the testimony of the chairman of the board, that the equalization was not based upon real estate alone. If the presumption of regularity can be overthrown by oral testimony in such a case,-a question that we do not pass upon,-the testimony referred to does not, in our opinion, sustain the claim. Dr. Loope, the chairman, was called upon in behalf of the state, and upon his direct examination was asked about the report of his committee. The following quotation from the record will show the nature of his examination:
To continue reading
Request your trial