Fuller v. City of Grand Rapids
| Decision Date | 31 January 1879 |
| Citation | 40 Mich. 395 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Edward P. Fuller and Cornelia G. Fuller v. City of Grand Rapids et al |
Submitted January 29, 1879
Appeal from Superior Court of Grand Rapids. Submitted January 28-29. Decided January 31.
Decree affirmed with costs.
Stuart & Sweet for complainants.
Wm Wisner Taylor for defendants.
The bill in this case was filed to enjoin the sale of real estate in satisfaction of a paving assessment. The amount for which the city claims a right to sell is less than one hundred dollars, and it is made a ground of defense that the amount involved is not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. But the jurisdiction, where the title to or enjoyment of one's real estate is in question does not depend on the amount of the claim asserted against it, but upon the value of the land itself. This we have often decided in unreported cases, and the principle of the case of White v Forbes, Walk. Ch. 112, is strictly applicable here.
The assessment made upon the lands of complainants amounted to about the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars. Complainants paid this amount to the city marshal, and they also paid to him a portion of his collecting fees. The remainder they refused to pay, claiming that they had had an agreement with him that he should receive what they had paid him in full satisfaction. An understanding of some sort on the subject between him and the complainants was admitted by the marshal, but he denied the agreement which they set up, and he refused to receive what was paid to him in full satisfaction. He did not, however, decline to take it, but claiming a right in the absence of specific instructions regarding the application of the moneys, to apply them as he thought proper, he applied them in satisfaction of the assessments on all the parcels of land assessed except one and proceeded to advertise that for the satisfaction of what he still claimed was unpaid.
It was conceded on the argument that under the law in force when the assessment was levied, lands could not be sold for the marshal's fees, but only for the assessment and interest thereon, and that the marshal's sole remedy was to collect his fees while he held the warrant. It is said however, that the law in that regard was amended before the sale was advertised, so as to permit the sale to be made for the amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Detroit Edison Co. v. East China Township School Dist. No. 3
...890 (1961). Therefore, the rule in Michigan that the value of the property determines jurisdictional amount, Fuller v. City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, 40 Mich. 395 (1879), has no bearing in this Neither plaintiffs Ralph Wertz nor Herbert Knack avers the requisite jurisdictional amount. Thei......
-
Rushton v. Schram
...v. Township of New Buffalo, 68 Mich. 217, 35 N.W. 918; Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co., 46 Mich. 278, 287, 9 N.W. 410; Fuller v. City of Grand Rapids, 40 Mich. 395; Smith v. Humphrey, Auditor General, 20 Mich. 398, 405-408; Harrison v. Metz, 17 Mich. 377, But the Attorney General of Michigan......
-
Simon v. House
...statute, only by the value of the property affected. ' Smith v. Adams, supra; Parker v. Morrill, 106 U.S. 1, 1 S.Ct. 14. See Fuller v. Grand Rapids, 40 Mich. 395. It that the matter in dispute here is the tract of real estate described in the bill, and its value must therefore be looked to ......
-
Bd. of Sup'rs of Arenac Cnty. v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Iosco Cnty.
...intent that they should have retroactive effect clearly appears. Price v. Hopkin, 13 Mich. 318;Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich. 308;Fuller v. Grand Rap., 40 Mich. 395;Maxwell v. Bay City R. Co., 46 Mich. 278, 9 N. W. 410;Phillips v. Buffalo Tp., 68 Mich. 217, 35 N. W. 918;In re Lambrecht, 137 Mi......