City of Detroit v. Kresge
Decision Date | 28 March 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 143.,143. |
Citation | 200 Mich. 668,167 N.W. 39 |
Parties | CITY OF DETROIT v. KRESGE. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; P. J. M. Hally, Judge.
Action by the City of Detroit against Sebastian S. Kresge to recover takes assessed against defendant. There was judgment for defendant on a directed verdict, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before OSTRANDER, C. J., and BIRD, MOORE, STEERE, BROOKE, FELLOWS, STONE, and KUHN, JJ. Walter Barlow, of Detroit (Harry J. Dingeman and Divie B. Duffield, both of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.
Donnelly, Lyster & Munro and John H. Brennan, all of Detroit, for appellee.
In this case it was stipulated as follows:
‘Mr. Kresge appealed from the decision of the board of review to the board of state tax commissioners, who sustained the assessment.
‘The S. S. Kresge Company is licensed to do business in the 21 other states and District of Columbia mentioned above, and does business there in its own name as a Michigan corporation.
The court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. The case is here by writ of error.
Counsel are agreed that the only question involved is whether the court should have directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $41,840.90, instead of directing a verdict in favor of the defendant.
The claim of counsel for the appellant is clearly and concisely stated as follows:
‘It is double taxation for the same state, as Michigan, to tax the property and stock of the same corporation, whether domestic or foreign; but it is not double taxation for one state to tax property, and another state to tax the stock of the same corporation.
In Bacon v. State Tax Commissioners, supra, Justice Long, speaking for the court, said:
‘There are the questions of policy and abstract justice involved, both protesting against double taxation but the Legislatures of the states are judges of both policy and propriety so long as Constitutions have not forbidden it, and the weight of authority supports the claim that, in the absence of clear and express prohibition, they have not.’
The stock assessed in that case was stock in a foreign corporation, and the assessment was sustained for the reason that section 9 provides for the assessment of ‘all shares in foreign corporations, except in national banks, owned by citizens of this state.’ There is a clear intimation that a different result would have been reached had the stock been that of a domestic corporation. Clearly that case is not controlling of the instant case. In Stroh v. City of Detroit, supra, Justice Hooker, in speaking for the court, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shapero v. State Dep't of Revenue
...would have resulted in double taxation under the authority of Stroh v. City of Detroit, 131 Mich. 109, 90 N.W. 1029;City of Detroit v. Kresge, 200 Mich. 668, 167 N.W. 39, and other case cited by Mr. Justice Carr in the foregoing opinion. Act No. 301, Pub.Acts 1939, as amended by Act No. 233......
-
Holmes v. Borgen
...body. Well-considered decisions so hold. Commonwealth v. Fidelity Trust Co., 147 Ky. 77, 143 S. W. 1037; City of Detroit v. Kresge, 200 Mich. 668, 167 N.W. 39; Board of Commissioners v. Ryan, 107 Okl. 278, 232 P. 834; Dupuy v. Johns, 261 Pa. 40, 104 A. 565; Tennessee Fertilizer Co. v. McFal......
-
Voorheis v. Walker
...was a Michigan corporation, and its stock was not liable to general taxation in the hands of Michigan holders. City of Detroit v. Kresge, 200 Mich. 668, 167 N. W. 39. In Rolling Stock Co. v. People, 147 Ill. 234, 35 N. W. 608,24 L. R. A. 462, it was said: ‘Important as is the duty of every ......
-
Dir. of Dep't of Ins. & Fin. Servs. v. Pavonia Life Ins. Co. of Mich.
...is considered the property of the stockholder separate and distinct from the property of the issuing corporation. Detroit v Kresge, 200 Mich App 668, 673; 167 NW 39 (1918). Here, the stock is held by and, therefore, owned by third party GBIG. In addition, MCL 500.8101(3) directs, in part, t......
-
Coming to terms with strict and liberal construction.
...this role is debatable, but the role is perhaps unavoidable because of their semantic effects. (75) See, e.g., City of Detroit v. Kresge, 167 N.W. 39, 41 (Mich. 1918) (speaking loosely of "a literal or strict construction" of a particular provision and using the terms "literal" and "strict ......