Gates v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 07 November 1899
• Citation: 121 Mich. 663,80 N.W. 709
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GATES v. JOHNSON.

80 N.W. 709

121 Mich. 663

GATES v. JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 7, 1899

Error to circuit court, Sanilac county; Watson Beach, Judge.

Ejectment by Charles F. Gates against Freeman B. Johnson. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

This is an action of ejectment. Plaintiff's title rests upon a deed made by the auditor general upon a sale of the land for the taxes of 1891. By what title defendant claims, does not appear; the record simply showing that he was in possession of the land. Three objections are urged against the validity of the tax deed: (1) That the court was not in session for five days after the date set out for hearing any tax matters (2) that there was no certified copy of the decree attached to the tax record; (3) the extension of the taxes opposite the lands of the defendant was made after the decree was signed.

H. O. Babcock and J. S. Crandall, for appellant.

Chas F. Gates, in pro. per.

GRANT C.J. (after stating the facts).

1. The hearing upon the petition of the auditor general was fixed for November 13th. Court was in session upon that and the following day. The circuit court journal shows that this was a special term; that the court had a hearing in tax matters that an adjournment was duly had from the 14th to the 15th. On the 15th, court was opened in due form by the sheriff and, the circuit judge not appearing, court was adjourned at 6 o'clock p. m. until the following day. The like proceeding was had on November 16th and 17th, and on the 18th, the judge not appearing, the court was adjourned without day. It was shown by the clerk of the court that the judge instructed the clerk to thus adjourn the court for the purpose of receiving and filing protests. None were filed and on November 23d the decree was made and filed as of November 18th. It appears from the record that these adjournments were had from day to day for the purpose of allowing taxpayers to file their protests. Evidently they would have been considered if they had been filed. It was not necessary for the court to be actually in session in order that a taxpayer might file his protest, or petition for further time to do so. While he could present it to the court without filling, it is customary to file all such papers before the hearing. This is not a case where the court had closed the term and adjourned sine die. Defendant could have had his day in court, had he seen fit to file his objections within the five days. He was not deprived of the right so to do. He did not appear at the court room to present his paper, or at the clerk's office to file it. It is a fair inference that the judge was ready to appear in court and hear him or any other taxpayer who desired to present his claim. The judge is not required to actually sit upon the bench, so as to enable the taxpayer to make his application. Had the judge actually been present every morning, and, there being no business, adjourned the court to the following morning, there would have been a session of the court,...