Beaverton Tp. v. Lord
| Decision Date | 07 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 123.,123. |
| Citation | 235 Mich. 261,209 N.W. 122 |
| Parties | BEAVERTON TP. et al. v. LORD, Member of Board of State Tax Com'rs, et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Gladwin County, in Chancery; Guy E. Smith, Judge.
Bill by the Township of Beaverton and another against George Lord, member of the Board of State Tax Commissioners, and another. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal. Decree for plaintiffs.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Kinnane & Leibrand, of Bay City, for appellants.
Andrew B. Dougherty, Atty. Gen., and O. L. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee Lord.
Campbell & Foster, of Gladwin, for appellee Beaverton Power Co.
The bill in this case was filed to set aside action of defendant George Lord, member of and acting as the board of state tax commissioners in review of a township assessment roll. Plaintiff Cole is a resident taxpayer in the township. The Beaverton Power Company is a corporation, owning and operating a power plant within the corporate limits of the city of Beaverton with power supplied by a dam at that place across the Tobacco river. The power company has, by deeds, acquired in perpetuity right to flood certain lands in the township of Beaverton. On the township assessment roll for the year 1924, the several parcels of land so flooded were valued as ‘a special flowage easement of the Beaverton Power Company,’ and assessments were made against the Beaverton Power Company upon each parcel to the extent of flowage under the head of flowage easement. The assessed value thereof totaled $8,075. The power company complained of such assessments to the state tax commission, and defendant Lord held a hearing and determined that the flowage rights within the township were assessable only as a part of the real property of the Beaverton Power Company within the taxing district of the city of Beaverton and removed the assessments from the township roll. This action resulted in depriving the township of such taxable value to the detriment of each taxpayer in the township, and increased plaintiff Cole's tax to the amount of 70 cents. In the circuit the bill was dismissed on the ground the court of equity had no jurisdiction. The case is here by appeal of plaintiffs.
The power company asserts the commissioner was right in point of law. Defendant Lord denies equity jurisdiction in the premises, points out the fact the suit is against only one commissioner, and not the board, and avers the holding was right in point of law. We think the circuit judge was in error in holding the court of equity has no jurisdiction. Defendant Lord contends that certiorari from this court should be the remedy. It has uniformly been held by this court that certiorari will not lie to review acts which were not done in the exercise of judicial power or authority, but were merely ministerial, executive, or legislative in their character. Greenville Gas, Electric Light, Power & Fuel Co. v. City of Greenville, 165 Mich. 135, 130 N. W. 333.
The question here is of public moment, and therefore we shall pass technical questions relating to jurisdiction with only the following observations: Act No. 265, Public Acts 1921, declares:
‘The action of said board of member done as provided in this act shall be final.’
The tax law, therefore, affords no remedy by way of appeal, but this does not render the action of a member of the commission beyond judicial reach. The constitutional right that no one shall be deprived of his property, except by the law of the land, prevents deprivation of the right to have an impartial tribunal before which the public authorities may be called to justify their proceedings. See Cooley on Taxation (4th Ed.) § 1610.
The question here is one of situs of the property for the purposes of taxation. Courts may review questions of situs of property for the purposes of taxation. Cooley on Taxation, § 1612. The law has not fixed situs of the property right here involved outside of the taxing district where it is situated, and it is questionable whether the Legislature would have power to make real property, or a profit earning right impressed upon real property, taxable in a district in the state other than where it is in fact located. See Cooley on Taxation, § 444.
The ponding of water in the township, while for the benefit of the power plant in the city, and therefore an appurtenance of the plant, employs taxable land in the township by impressing thereon a servitude, and must bear its burden of taxation in the township. We note no distinction between holding the water back by a dam at the site of the power plant and a dam above that plant; for the purpose is storage of water, and land so used is to be taxed for its value for such purpose in the district where it is situated.
In Glidden v. Beaverton Power Co., 193 N. W. 862, 223 Mich. 383, we held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parsons v. Detroit & Canada Tunnel Co.
...do not preclude the granting of the relief herein sought. Ex parte Tyler, 149 U.S. 164, 13 S.Ct. 785, 37 L.Ed. 689; Beaverton Tp. v. Lord, 235 Mich. 261, 209 N.W. 122. As the Supreme Court has recently stated, under our system there is no warrant for the view that the judicial power of a co......
-
Whiting-Plover Paper Co. v. Town of Linwood
...Gilford, 64 N. H. 337, 10 A. 849;Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. v. Concord, 66 N. H. 562, 34 A. 241, 32 L. R. A. 621;Township of Beaverton v. Lord, 235 Mich. 261, 209 N. W. 122;Penobscot Chemical Fibre Co. v. Bradley, 99 Me. 263, 59 A. 83;Blackstone Mfg. Co. v. Blackstone, 200 Mass. 82, 85 N. E......
-
Beaverton Power Co. v. Wolverine Power Co.
...Company to flood, if necessary, and part of the Hunter land. The right of flowage is an interest in land, Township of Beaverton v. Lord, 235 Mich. 261, 209 N. W. 122, and can only be acquired by an instrument in writing, under seal, in the nature of a deed of conveyance or by prescription, ......
-
Drumheller v. Berks County Local Board No. 1, 8012.
...executive or legislative. In the Matter of Mount Morris Square, 2 Hill, N.Y., 14. See, also, People v. Rochester, 21 Barb., N.Y., 656, Beaverton Tp. v. Lord, 235 Mich. 261, 209 N.W. 122 and see United States v. Rauch, D.C., 253 F. 814. We are of the opinion that the functions of the Selecti......