Connors v. City of Detroit
| Decision Date | 10 June 1879 |
| Citation | 1 N.W. 902,41 Mich. 128 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | JEREMIAH CONNORS v. CITY OF DETROIT. |
A tax-payer brought suit in equity to restrain the receiver of taxes from collecting the whole city tax assessed against his property, upon the ground that levies for certain funds included therein were excessive: Held, that he should have offered to pay what was legally assessed, and upon such offer to pay the bill should not be dismissed.
Brennan & Donnelly, for plaintiff in error.
City Attorney Wm. C. Maybury, for defendant in error.
The second section of chapter 8 of the charter of Detroit empowers the common council to assess and collect annually taxes not exceeding one per centum on the assessed valuation of all real and personal estate in the city, which is made taxable by law, for the purposes for which the general fund contingent fund, fire department fund, general road fund poor fund, and recorder's court fund are severally constituted. In disregard of the limitation, the common council for the year 1874 caused to be assessed and levied specific sums for each of these funds, which in the aggregate amounted to more than one and a half per centum of the assessed valuation of property for the city. To the extent of this excess this levy was illegal and void. Wattles v Lapeer, 40 Mich.
Upon the tax-roll the levy for the several purposes above enumerated was included under the general designation of city tax, with many other items for other purposes. On the same roll there were separately levied taxes for school, highway sewer and police purposes. Complainant is owner of several parcels of land in the city, upon which taxes were levied for all these several purposes. He did not pay the taxes, and when the receiver of taxes took steps for a sale of the lands to satisfy them, he filed his bill to restrain the sale.
By his bill complainant offers to pay the school tax, highway tax and police tax, admitting their legality. He denies the validity of the sewer tax, but assigns in this court no reason for contesting it. He should, therefore, have offered to pay that also. He contests the whole amount of the city tax, while not disputing that many items embraced in it are legal and proper, nor contesting the right of the city to levy a tax of one per centum upon the valuation for those funds for which the excessive levy was made. What he claims is, that it is impossible now to separate the legal city tax from the illegal, because that would involve an apportionment to the extent of the legal levy among the several funds...
To continue reading
Request your trial