Detroit Shipbuilding Co. v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 24 July 1924
• Docket Number: No. 23,June Term.,23
• Citation: 199 N.W. 645,228 Mich. 145
• Parties: DETROIT SHIPBUILDING CO. v. CITY OF DETROIT.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

228 Mich. 145

199 N.W. 645

DETROIT SHIPBUILDING CO.

v.CITY OF DETROIT.

No. 23, June Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 24, 1924.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Joseph A. Moynihan, Judge.

Action by the Detroit Shipbuilding Company against the City of Detroit. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed, with direction.

Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Walter Barlow, of Detroit (George A. Kelly, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

Beaumont, Smith & Harris, of Detroit (Julian H. Harris and Melville C. Mason, both of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.

BIRD, J.

This action was begun to recover a tax on personal property of $2,246.88, which was paid by plaintiff under protest. The facts not being in dispute, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

The stipulation of facts shows that the Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Company contracted with the American Shipbuilding Company to construct for it two large passenger steamers for a stated consideration. The contract made it obligatory on the American Shipbuilding Company to keep the property insured. The American Shipbuilding Company constructed the hulls of the boats at Lorain, Ohio, and contracted with plaintiff to install the engine and machinery, also to manufacture and install the decks, cabins, and furnishings. In pursuance of this contract it sent raw materials to plaintiff for this purpose, and plaintiff was under obligation to bestow certain labor on and install it at its plant in Detroit. It was estimated that these materials, on April 1, 1923, some of which were raw, some manufactured, and some in process, were of the value of $100,000; and the board of assessors assessed it to plaintiff at that sum. Plaintiff denied that it owned the property, and asserted that the property belonged to the Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Company. That company appeared before the board of assessors and denied that it was the owner of the property. Finally the board assessed it to plaintiff, because it had possession of it, and, under protest, it paid the tax, and now seeks to recover.

It is asserted by defendant that under the city charter it was properly assessed to plaintiff because it had possession of it on April 1, 1923, and cites the following provision of the charter to support it:

‘The owners or persons in possession of any personal property shall pay the taxes thereon.’ Detroit City Charter, tit. 6, c. 4, § 1, p. 118.

Plaintiff asserts that the state tax law requires personal property to be assessed to the owner, and points out that the charter provision quoted does not authorize an assessment against one in possession who is not the owner, but simply provides that he shall pay the tax.

It appears that the assessor had great difficulty in determining against whom the assessment should be made. The difficulty was increased because the question of title depended in some measure upon the construction of the contract between the Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Company and the American Shipbuilding Company. The provision which raises this doubt reads:

‘While said steamers are in the course of building, the owner shall, on making the payments aforesaid, become part owner of said steamers and all materials therefor, in the proportion that the amount of payments made herein shall bear to the value of work done and materials furnished on and for said steamers.’

Under this clause of the contract the Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Company would be part owner of the property taxed, and the...