Dawson v. Aurelius Tp.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1882 |
| Citation | 13 N.W. 824,49 Mich. 479 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | DAWSON v. TOWNSHIP OF AURELIUS. |
In the performance of their duties, drain commissioners are in no sense the agents of the township. There is no township responsibility for their defaults or misconduct, and taxes collected and paid out, in a drain proceeding that is irregular and void, cannot be recovered in an action of assumpsit against the township.
Error to Ingham.
A.B. Haynes, for plaintiff.
Huntington & Henderson, for defendant and appellant.
This is an action of assumpsit to recover the amount of a drain tax which plaintiff had paid to the township treasurer under protest and which the treasurer had subsequently paid out on order of the township board. The proceedings in laying out the drain were found to be illegal, by reason of the failure of the drain commissioner to comply with certain provisions of the statute, and the ground of recovery relied upon is that the township has received the plaintiff's money without right, and has appropriated it to the use of others without authority of law.
On the finding of facts the case must turn on the question whether the township can be deemed to have received the plaintiff's money. If it has, it must account for it; if not, there is no claim against it. And it is very clear we think, that under the statute the township never receives the moneys levied for drain taxes, and never becomes accountable for it. Township drain commissioners are elected in the townships, but they have their independent duties to perform in respect to which they neither are under the control of the township nor is the township as such in any manner concerned. The laying out of drains is commonly a matter of mere neighborhood interest; they affect small bodies of land; the taxes laid are local assessments, and do not and cannot under the statute become a general charge. In the performance of his duties, the commissioner is in no sense the agent of the township, and there is no township responsibility for his defaults or misconduct.
It is true these local levies are collected by the township treasurer and "received into the township treasury," (Pub.Acts 1875,p. 173, � 10;) but they are not received for the township, and do not at any time become a part of the township moneys. In the treasurer's hands they are a specified fund; collected as such and held by him to be paid out on orders...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Com'rs of Johnson County v. Searight Cattle Co.
...Vermont Cent. R. Co. v. Burlington, 28 Vt. 193; Spear v. Braintree, 24 Vt. 414; Fairbanks & Co. v. Kittredge, 24 Vt. 9; Dawson v. Aurelius Tp., 49 Mich. 479, 13 N.W. 824; Camp v. Algansee, 50 Mich. 4, 14 N.W. 672; v. Supervisors of Niagara Co., 62 N.Y. 294; Slack v. Norwich, 32 Vt. 818; Nel......
-
Moore v. Harrison
...he is to-day, can only be required to pay for a public purpose. In a line of decisions of this court beginning with Dawson v. Township of Aurelius, 49 Mich. 479, 13 N. W. 824, and concluding with the Township of Cooper v. Little, 220 Mich. 62, 189 N. W. 914, this court has held that, aside ......
-
Cooper Tp. v. Little
...under consideration the question of the fiscal affairs of drain proceedings. In a long line of cases beginning with Dawson v. Aurelius Township, 49 Mich 479, 13 N. W. 824, this court has uniformly recognized that the fiscal affairs of a drain were separate and distinct from the general fisc......
-
Maffei v. Berrien Cnty.
...the county is in effect a suit against the state, an action will not lie without the consent of the legislature.’ In Dawson v. Aurelius Township, 49 Mich. 479, 13 N.W. 824, it was stated that a township drain commissioner was in no sense an agent of the township and that the township could ......