Hart v. Henderson

Citation17 Mich. 218
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Decision Date13 July 1868
PartiesAlvin N. Hart v. Henry L. Henderson
Heard July 7, 1868

Error to Ingham circuit.

This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover the possession of certain real estate bid in by defendant in error at the annual state tax sale, for the non-payment of taxes for the year 1863.

The declaration was in the usual form.

The case was tried without a jury, and the court found the following facts, to wit:

"This was an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff to recover block 'A,' city of Lansing, Michigan, who based his claim to the land, and right to recover, upon a tax deed made by the auditor-general of the state of Michigan to him, for the delinquent taxes for the year 1863. The taxes for the non-payment of which said premises were sold, were as follows:

"State tax, $ 1.33; county tax, $ 6.93; city tax, $ 3.42; highway tax, $ 0.45; school tax, $ 3.70; bridge tax, $ 4.56; ward tax, $ 1.80. Amounting in all to $ 22 19/100, which sum, with the addition of $ 3 11/100 interest and charges, amounting to $ 25 30/100, was the sum paid by the plaintiff when he purchased the premises at the annual tax sales, for the purchase of the premises.

"And further finds that the defendant, in the fall of 1864, and before the time of redemption had expired, applied to the office of the auditor-general, at Lansing, to redeem the premises in question, by paying the amount for which it had been sold, with interest, which application was in writing and contained other descriptions of land, at the same time leaving with said auditor-general money to pay the redemptions of all the descriptions, but, by mistake at the office of the auditor-general, no redemption certificate for the premises in question was made, which was not discovered until the time for the redemption had expired; that no money was retained by the auditor-general for the redemption of these premises.

"And the court further finds that the city, highway, and school tax were illegally assessed, which fact was admitted by the parties upon the trial of said cause.

"From the foregoing facts, the court deduces the following conclusions of law:

"First That the tax deed from the auditor-general to the plaintiff for the delinquent taxes of 1863, was void, and the defendant entitled to a judgment for the land in question.

"Second That the plaintiff is entitled to recover a judgment against the defendant for the sum of $ 25 30/100, being the whole amount of taxes, interest and costs paid by him for the purchase of said land at the annual tax sale, with interest at the rate of twenty-five per cent per annum, and that judgment should be entered accordingly."

Whereupon judgment was entered accordingly.

Judgment in favor of Henderson reversed, with costs of this court.

Dart & Wiley, for plaintiff in error.

Huntington & Root, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Cooley Ch. J.:

Henderson, as it appears from the record, brought ejectment against Hart for a lot of land in the city of Lansing, claiming to recover under a tax sale made for delinquent taxes of 1863.

The taxes for which this sale was made amounted to $ 22.19, of which three items, amounting to $ 7.57, were conceded by the parties, on the trial, to have been illegally assessed, and the circuit judge so found. Whether the other taxes were legal or not is not found. The tax deed was clearly void, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Douglas v. City of Fargo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • November 26, 1904
    ......17, and note 9;. Cole v. LaGrange, 19 F. 871; People v. Morris, 13 Wend. 325; Conway v. Cable, 37 Ill. 82; Hart v. Henderson, 17 Mich. 218; Dean v. Borchsenius, 30 Wis. 236; Dean v. Charlton, 23 Wis. 590. . .          The. curative power of ......
  • Brewer v. Folsom Brothers Co., 1697
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 24, 1931
    ...... Valiant, 30 Md. 139. Nor against the county or town. Lynde v. Melrose, 10 Allen 49. Nor against the owner. of the property sold. Hart v. Henderson, 17 Mich. 218. These are harsh rules to apply in a case where the tax. was just and legal, but the proceedings to make it a charge. ......
  • Forster v. Forster
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 23, 1880
    ...... property already made. Mattingly v. District of. Columbia , 97 U.S. 687. Grim v. Weissenberg. School District , 57 Pa. 433. Hart v. Henderson , 17 Mich. 218. . .          6th. Cases in which the only point before the court was whether. the statute in question ......
  • Kiskaddon v. Dodds
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 13, 1902
    ...Perry v. Adams, 98 N.C. 167; Roche v. Waters, 72 Md. 264; Harrison v. Harrison, 106 N.C. 282; Pryor v. Downey, 50 Cal. 388; Hart v. Henderson, 17 Mich. 218; Hopkins v. Mason, 61 Barb. (N.Y.) Legislative enactments providing for the arbitrary and involuntary transfer of the property of one p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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