Goodenough v. State, 4

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtBOYLES; PER CURIAM
Citation328 Mich. 502,44 N.W.2d 161
PartiesGOODENOUGH v. STATE et al., BROOKS v. STATE et al.
Docket NumberNo. 4,4
Decision Date02 October 1950

Page 161

44 N.W.2d 161
328 Mich. 502

STATE et al.,
STATE et al.
No. 4.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
Oct. 2, 1950.

[328 Mich. 503] Daniel W. Goodenough, Detroit, for appellant.

Stephen J. Roth, Attorney General, Edmund E. Shepherd, Solicitor General, Lansing, T. Carl Holbrook, Daniel J. O'Hara, Assistants Attorney General, for appellees.



Our former opinion rendered in this cause is reported in 328 Mich. 56, 43 N.W.2d 235. A motion for rehearing has been made by plaintiff Margaret B. Goodenough. Plaintiff and defendants have each filed a brief. They agree and we admit that in stating the factual situation there was in our former opinion an inaccuracy which resulted in our ordering judgment for plaintiff in a wrong amount. In substance we stated that by reason of there having been included in computing plaintiff's intangibles tax a claimed or alleged interest in the nonprofit-producing intangibles which were owned and held by the Pennsylvania [328 Mich. 504] trustees, plaintiff's tax was increased in the amount of $21.58. Such was not the fact. Instead the resultant increase was $7.09. The items of the tax constituting the total of $21.58 were as follows:

Item 1-- Tax on plaintiff's
                 individually owned
                 intangibles $19.39
                Item 2-- Tax computed on the
                 erroneous assumption of
                 plaintiff having some
                 beneficial interest in the
                 intangibles belonging to
                 the trust 7.09
                Item 3-- Plaintiff's tax computed at
                 3% on one-ninth of the
                 gross income from the
                 profit producing intangibles 15.10
                 Total.................. $41.58
                 Less deduction (C.L. 1948,
                 § 205.133, Stat.Ann. 1950
                 Rev. § 7.556(3)
                 Amount of tax........... $21.58.

Page 162

In view of the foregoing, and notwithstanding plaintiff's contention to the contrary, our former holding that plaintiff should recover the full amount of $21.58 was erroneous. The issue presented may be narrowed down as follows:

No sound reason is advanced for challenging the validity of item 1 above noted;

Defendants now admit that assessment of the portion of the tax noted above in item was illegal;

Hence there remains only the controversy as to the validity of that portion of the tax noted above in item 3.

The following is quoted from plaintiff's original brief: 'It is conceded at the very outset that a tax may be assessed by the State of Michigan...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT