City of Detroit v. Gray

• Decision Date: 13 May 1946
• Docket Number: No. 29.,29.
• Citation: 22 N.W.2d 771,314 Mich. 516
• Parties: CITY OF DETROIT et al. v. GRAY.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

314 Mich. 516

22 N.W.2d 771

CITY OF DETROIT et al.

v.GRAY.

No. 29.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 13, 1946.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; James E. chenot, judge.

Action by City of Detroit and Albert E. Cobo, Treasurer of the City of Detroit, against Elmer J. Gray, to collect personal property taxes. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

Fildew & DeGree, of Detroit, for defendant and appellant.

William E. Dowling, Corp. Counsel, and John H. Witherspoon and Alfred S. Stolinski, Asst. Corp. Counsels, all of Detroit, for plaintiffs and appellees.

SHARPE, Justice.

This is an action by the city of Detroit against defendant, Elmer J. Gray, a resident of Detroit for the collection of personal property taxes claimed to be past due for the years 1938 to 1942 inclusive.

The material facts are not in dispute. Defendant, his wife and child occupied a home located in the city of Detroit. The home contained household furniture. In 1930, defendant entered into an agreement conveying his household furniture to his wife. This agreement was not recorded and was not known to the assessing officers. During the years 1938 to 1942 inclusive a notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, advising taxpayers that assessment rolls would be completed and available for inspection by the taxpayers. There was evidence that blank forms for sworn statements for the listing of taxable personal property were mailed to defendant for the years 1938 to 1942 inclusive. In addition, a second demand and notice to file a sworn statement was mailed to defendant by registered mail in 1938 and 1940. Each was receipted for by an employee in defendant's household. Defendantdid not at any time file a sworn statement of personal property owned by him or in his possession. Defendant testified that he knew he was being assessed for personal property taxes upon the household furniture, but did not register any complaint concerning the assessment to the board of assessors, the board of review of the common council or the State board of taxation.

The cause came on for trial and at the close of all proofs, both plaintiffs and defendant made a motion for a directed verdict. The jury was discharged and the question of fact relating to the mailing of blank forms for sworn statements and the legal questions were submitted to the court for decision. The trial court found as a fact that the blank forms were mailed to defendant; that inasmuch as defendant and the personal property were located within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing officers and the personal property was in the possession of the defendant, it need not be shown that the party assessed was the owner of the property; and that defendant failed to exhaust his remedy before any of the boards of review to correct an unjust assessment. Following the decision, a judgment of $505.78 was entered against defendant.

Defendant appeals and urges that the tax assessments sued upon were invalid because the charter provision of the city of Detroit requires persons upon demand to file a statement under oath as to his personal property with the board of assessors, and relies upon Turner v. Circuit Judge, 95 Mich. 1, 54 N.W. 705, 706, in support of the mandatory provision in the charter.

The provision of the Detroit charter in question is section 3 of title 6, chapter 2, which reads as follows:

‘The board of assessors shall have, as herein provided, power and authority to demand of every person owning or having charge as agent, or otherwise, of any taxable property, a list of such property, with such description as will enable the board to assess the same, which demand may be made in writing, and by delivering it to such person, or by leaving it at his place of residence, with some person of proper years and discretion, and if the person of whom such demand is made, shall not, within ten days thereafter, deliver to such board a list of the property in said district belonging to him or her, or under his or her charge, with a correct description of the same, or if he or she shall omit any such property in the list delivered, said board shall have...