Finn v. Haynes
| Decision Date | 12 June 1877 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Patrick Finn v. Isaac Haynes and Freeling W. Peck |
Argued June 8, 1877
Case made from Superior Court of Grand Rapids. (Holmes, J.)
Trover. Plaintiff had judgment below. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
J. A Fairfield (on brief) for plaintiff.
D. E Corbitt (on brief) for defendants.
This is a case made after judgment in the Superior Court of Grand Rapids.
The plaintiff was the owner of a tavern and leased it in 1874 to one Levi Husbands who executed a chattel mortgage dated in February, 1874, to secure to the plaintiff the sum of $ 800. The articles mortgaged consisted of bedding, bedsteads, dishes and the like in the tavern.
Husbands kept a bar for the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, but neglected to pay the required tax under the Act of 1875 (Pub. L., 1875, p. 274).
The county treasurer then issued his warrant under section eight and delivered it to defendant Haynes, who was sheriff, and he passed it to Peck, one of his deputies, with instructions to seize the goods covered by the chattel mortgage.
Prior to this, the mortgage having fallen due, the plaintiff took possession of the property on the mortgage and commenced foreclosure. This was on the 3d of December, 1875.
After having seized the property, the plaintiff, by the assent of Husbands and his wife, stored it in several of the rooms in the tavern and fastened the doors and windows.
On the 5th of December the defendants levied the warrant on these goods and took them and carried them away. They knew of the mortgage and were aware that the plaintiff had taken possession and commenced foreclosure. They also knew that there was then due to the plaintiff on the mortgage the sum of $ 800. The goods claimed in the declaration were worth $ 161.50.
The court instructed the jury that if they found the goods were not in the bar room, or any part of the bar fixtures, nor used in connection therewith, then the defendants were not justified in taking them from the possession of the plaintiff and they should find for the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff's favor for $ 161.11.
The defendants excepted to this charge, and this presents the only question made. It is maintained by the defense that under section nine of the Act the tax was by law leviable on the property which was seized, notwithstanding the chattel mortgage; whilst the plaintiff claims that the superiority of the tax over all "levies, mortgages, conveyances or incumbrances" is confined to "bar fixtures or furniture, liquors, beverages and other goods and chattels used in carrying on such business," and that the tax is not allowed to override lawful securities on other leviable property of the defaulting tax payer. The wording of the section and the spirit of the legislation afford grounds of argument in favor of the second view, but as in my judgment the point does not arise in this case I shall not discuss it. The case shows conclusively that the plaintiff's mortgage was made some time before the statute in question was enacted, and if the legislature had made the Act expressly applicable as against antecedent contracts, it would have been necessary to consider its constitutional validity. But such is not the case.
It is true the language is general, but it is still subject to the rule of interpretation which imputes an intention against retrospective action unless the terms clearly indicate an intention in favor of it. Cooley on Const. Lim. 370, and cases: Harrison v. Metz 17 Mich. 377; Clark v. Hall 19 Mich. 356; Smith v Auditor General 20 Mich. 398. And surely, before venturing to assume the existence of any such purpose, it would be necessary to find the will of the legislature very distinctly expressed in favor of making new tax levies have preference over lawful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morey Engineering & Construction Company v. St. Louis Artificial Ice Rink Company
... ... v. Dresnger, 31 N.J.Eq. 507; Howell v. Essex, ... 31 N.J.Eq. 672; Allen v. Allen, 34 N.J.Eq. 493; ... Shotwell Case, 45 N.J.Eq. 106; Finn v. Hayes, 37 ... Mich. 63; Copeland v. Kehoe, 67 Ala. 594. (2) ... Statutes of taxation are strictly construed and all doubts ... resolved in ... ...
-
Lucas v. Murphy
...prior liens and encumbrances the courts, without more, have never applied the statutes to liens created before the law was passed. [Finn v. Haynes, 37 Mich. 63; Hulin v. Butte County, 18 S.D. 339, 100 N.W. Maricopa County v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. (Ariz.), 28 P.2d 821; In re Prince & Wa......
-
Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, 15
...State as to retroactive application of legislation is that the legislative intent must be clearly and unequivocally expressed. Finn v. Haynes (1877), 37 Mich. 63; Detroit Trust Co. v. City of Detroit (1934), 269 Mich. 81, 256 N.W. 811; In re Davis' Estate (1951), 330 Mich. 647, 48 N.W.2d 15......
-
Bd. of Sup'rs of Arenac Cnty. v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Iosco Cnty.
...Rap., 127 Mich. 92,86 N. W. 401;Heineman v. Schloss, 83 Mich. 153, 47 N. W. 107;Stitt v. Casterline, 89 Mich. 239, 50 N. W. 847;Finn v. Haynes, 37 Mich. 63;Danville Co. v. Ct. J., 88 Mich. 244, 50 N. W. 40;Philip v. Heraty, 147 Mich. 473, 111 N. W. 93,118 Am. St. Rep. 554;Little v. Brousfie......