Hinds v. Belvidere Tp.

• Decision Date: 24 December 1895
• Citation: 65 N.W. 544,107 Mich. 664
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HINDS v. TOWNSHIP OF BELVIDERE.

65 N.W. 544

107 Mich. 664

HINDS v. TOWNSHIP OF BELVIDERE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 24, 1895

Error to circuit court, Montcalm county; Frank D. M. Davis, Judge.

Action by Henry Hinds against the township of Belvidere. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Thomas F. McGarry and George E. Nichols, for appellant.

Frank A. Miller, for appellee.

LONG J.

This action was brought to recover the amount of taxes paid by the plaintiff to the township treasurer under protest. The case was heard before the court without a jury, and the court found that the plaintiff became the owner of the lands against which the taxes were assessed in the years 1870 1871, and 1872, and that he had not conveyed the lands away; that for the several years succeeding the times of his purchase, and up to and including the year 1887 plaintiff paid the taxes assessed against the lands for each year; that they were assessed to the plaintiff as owner up to and including the year 1888; that the taxes assessed against them for the years 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891 were not paid and were returned as delinquent, and the lands were advertised for sale for nonpayment of taxes, and were sold to and purchased in by the state prior to the assessment of the taxes for the year 1893, and that they have not been redeemed from sales; that the lands were assessed as nonresident for the years 1890, 1891, and 1892; that they were assessed to plaintiff as owner for the year 1893; that on the 29th of January, 1894, the plaintiff paid to the treasurer of the township $185.48, being the amount of taxes assessed against the lands for the year 1893; and that said taxes were paid under the following protests: "(1) For the reason that the lands are assessed at an unequal and unreasonable value, as should be known to the assessing officer, and is known to him and to the board of review; that it is well known that these lands are for sale, and have been for years, at a much less price than the valuation placed thereon by the assessor. It may be asked why, if I had an interest in these lands, I did not appear before the board of review and ask that the valuation be reduced. The answer is that during the session of that board I was not in the state of Michigan. (2) These lands are nonresident, and the assessing officer had no sort or shadow of authority to assess them to me. As an illustration of the truth of this proposition, I cite the fact that the state is carrying on all these lands all the tax bids since the year 1887." Upon these facts the court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. It is claimed that the facts found do not support the judgment.

It is conceded by the plaintiff's counsel that, as a general rule, no tax can be recovered which has been paid under protest, unless it is a nullity, and not a mere irregularity; but the complaint made is that it is an effort on the part of the township to collect out of the personal property of the plaintiff the amount of taxes assessed upon the lands then belonging to the state. The tax was assessed under Act No. 200, Pub. Acts 1891. Section 3 of that act provides certain exemptions, as follows: "All public property belonging to the United States, to this state, or to any county, city, village or township or school district within this state, save lands purchased at tax sales and still held by the state." Under this provision of the statute, defendant contends these lands were properly assessable to the plaintiff as owner. But the contention of plaintiff is that, inasmuch as the state was the owner under the tax sales, an assessment of them to the plaintiff would deprive him of property without due process of law, and take his private property for public use without compensation, and...