Boyce v. Sebring
| Decision Date | 09 June 1887 |
| Citation | 33 N.W. 815,66 Mich. 210 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | BOYCE v. SEBRING. |
Error to circuit court, Osceola county.
More & Wilson, for plaintiff and appellant.
C.H Rose, for defendant.
This is an action of ejectment. The defendant relies upon deeds from the state of Michigan executed by the auditor general for the taxes delinquent for the years 1875, 1876, 1878, and 1880. The judgment in the court below was in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff brings the case here by a writ of error. Nine errors are assigned. The first is that the court erred in admitting in evidence the state tax deed for the taxes of 1875, and the fifth assignment is that the court erred in holding and deciding that the taxes on the lands in question for 1875 were properly levied, and that defendant's deed of said land for the taxes of 1875 was valid.
The deed is claimed to be invalid for the following reasons: (1) No apportionment of either state or county tax was made by the board of supervisors. (2) The board of supervisors did not "ascertain and determine the amount of money to be raised by tax for county purposes" in 1875. (3) The certificate of the chairman of the board of supervisors required by section 29 of the tax law (How.St. � 1029) was not appended to the assessment roll of the township of Orient for 1875. (4) The tax levied on this land, and for which it was sold, was excessive, because the sum of $498.73 highway tax, spread on the rolls of Orient township for 1875, and included in the supervisors' warrant, was not authorized by the board of supervisors, and was not certified to the supervisor of Orient by the clerk of the board of supervisors, as required by sections 31 and 32 of the tax law. (5) The certificate of the clerk of the board of supervisors shows that $250 was to be raised in Orient in 1875 for township purposes, while the supervisors' warrant shows that $275 was levied, an excess of $25; about one-thirtieth of the whole amount raised in the township. (6) There was no equalization of the assessment rolls of the several townships of Osceola county for 1875. (7) The taxes raised in Orient township for township purposes, in 1875 were unauthorized, because no action was taken by the board on these taxes as required by section 31 of the tax law.
The objections will be considered separately, and in the order stated.
The requirements of section 31 are mandatory. The board of supervisors must ascertain and determine the amount of money to be raised by tax for county purposes, and to apportion this, and the amount of state tax required to be raised, among the several townships in the county, in proportion to the valuation of the taxable property therein for one year, as equalized by the board; and this determination and apportionment must be entered at large upon their records. It appears from the records of the board of supervisors for the year 1875 that the total valuation of the taxable property in the county, as equalized by them, was $1,888,542, and that the valuation of the taxable property in the township of Orient was $130,147. Their records also show the equalized valuation of each township in the county. It also appears of record that the total amount of money to be raised for county purposes was ascertained and determined to be $10,250, and the amount of state tax apportioned to the county was $736.34.
There appears of record an itemized statement of taxes to be raised in each township in the county; and in that pertaining to Orient township were the following items relative to state and county tax, viz.: State tax, $50.75; county tax, $706.32. The following also appears in the proceedings of the board of supervisors: "On motion of Supervisor Moulton, the amount of state tax, $736.34, reported by the auditor general to the clerk of the board of supervisors to be raised in the county, was authorized to be spread upon the assessment rolls of the different townships." Following the statement of the several amounts to be raised by tax in Orient township appears the following: "On motion of Supervisor Delamarter, the supervisor of the township of Orient was authorized to spread upon the assessment roll of said township the several taxes, as appears by the statement above," which was adopted, by an aye and nay vote, unanimously.
The question is, does this record comply with the statute? The determination of the amount of money to be raised by tax for county purposes was entered at large upon the record. The proportion of state and county tax required to be raised in the county, according to the valuation of the taxable property therein, as equalized by the board of supervisors, appears of record in the tabulated statements of taxes to be raised in each town. The apportionment consists in ascertaining by a mathematical computation what part of the state and of the county tax each township shall raise. The law lays down the ratio, and says that the apportionment shall be in proportion as the total equalized valuation of the taxable property in the county is to the equalized valuation of the taxable property in the township, so is the whole amount to be raised to the amount to be raised in each township. The result is the amount to be apportioned; and the apportionment is the distribution of this amount so ascertained as the just share to each township. It is the latter which the law requires to be entered at large upon the record, and not the calculation which led to the result. Nor is it necessary that the word "apportion" be used, or any particular form adopted. It is sufficient if it appears of record that the just share of the amount to be raised for state and county purposes is distributed among the several townships to be raised by taxation. The statute appears to have been complied with by the board of supervisors, and this reason for declaring the deed invalid must be overruled.
The second point is not tenable. The committee on ways and means reported the amount necessary to be raised for county expenses the coming year, stating in the report the amounts necessary for different objects, aggregating $9,850. This report was adopted. Afterwards the salary of the judge of probate and prosecuting attorney was increased, and $400 added to the above amount.
The third objection cannot be sustained, for the reason that it does not appear that the assessment roll was not properly certified. The tax-roll was put in evidence, but not the assessment roll. It has been held by this court that the certificate is no part of the roll, and need not be copied into the tax-roll delivered to the collector. Sibley v. Smith, 2 Mich. 486, 502; Tweed v. Metcalf, 4 Mich. 579; Clark v. Axford, 5 Mich. 182, 187; Bird v. Perkins, 33 Mich. 28.
The fourth objection is to the sum of $498.73 for a highway tax, which was spread upon the roll of Orient township for 1875. This sum was not included in the amounts certified to the board of supervisors under section 26, and approved by them under section 31. It is embraced in the warrant annexed to the assessment roll, and is apportioned among four highway districts. It does not appear into what number of highway districts the township of Orient is divided. It is claimed by defendant that the assessment was authorized by section 22 of the statute of 1875, p. 91, which authorized the supervisors to assess unworked highway taxes from a list furnished by the commissioner of highways; and it is further claimed that there is nothing in this record showing that the land in question was in either of the highway districts assessed. The record does not furnish sufficient data to authorize us to say that this highway tax was illegally assessed. Robbins v. Barron, 33 Mich. 124; Stockle v. Silsbee, 41 Mich. 616, 2 N.W. 900.
The fifth objection is based upon a misapprehension. The supervisors' warrant combines the two items of $250 for township purposes, and $25 for special building fund, into one item, making $275, which the warrant authorizes the treasurer to collect for township purposes.
The point taken under the sixth objection, that the equalization was performed by a committee instead of the whole board, cannot be sustained. The committee made their report to the board, and the report was adopted by the board. This made the action of the committee the action of the board.
The report consisted of a tabular statement, embracing all the townships in the county, under headings as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOWNSHIP. REAL AS PERSONAL. AS EQUALIZED. ADDED DEDUCTED FROM.
ASSESSED. TO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orient. $118,826 $21,321 130,147 $10,000
*** *** *** *** ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,686,071 $202,471 $1,888,542 $76,000 $76,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is claimed that the report of the committee is ambiguous; that it does not show clearly whether the figures in the column headed "As Equalized" give the valuation of real property as equalized, or of the real and personal property of the several townships; that there are no figures, in fact that purport to give the aggregate valuation of the taxable real and personal property of each township as determined by them, as required by law. The law requires the board of supervisors at their October session in each year to examine the...
To continue reading
Request your trial