Hoffman v. Auditor General

• Citation: 136 Mich. 689,100 N.W. 180
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 25 June 1904
• Parties: HOFFMAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL.

100 N.W. 180

136 Mich. 689

HOFFMAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 25, 1904

Mandamus on relation of Frank Hoffman against the Auditor General. Writ granted.

Hovey & Stockwell, for relator.

Charles A. Blair, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

McFarlan & Wilson, for Flint Land Co., Limited.

CARPENTER J.

Relator became the owner of the land in controversy in 1900. He acquired his title by warranty deed, and the covenants of warranty therein excepted 'the taxes of 1895 and subsequent years, and all claims arising therefrom.' At this time the lands were delinquent for the taxes of 1895 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899. The land was sold for the nonpayment of taxes of 1897 and 1898, and the state acquired an absolute title thereunder in May, 1901, and May, 1902 respectively. The land was advertised for sale for the taxes of 1899, and for the reforeclosed taxes of 1896, at the May sale in 1902. Relator attended this sale and bid in the lands for those taxes, and then applied to the deputy county treasurer conducting the sale 'to pay, redeem, and purchase all the taxes then remaining a lien on the land.' The said deputy county treasurer made out and delivered to relator tax certificates of sale for the years 1899 and 1896, and informed him that said lands were not held for any other years, though at that time the land was held as state tax land, subject to purchase for the taxes of 1897 and 1898, above described. Subsequently the Flint Land Company Limited, applied to respondent to purchase these lands, and deposited sufficient money to pay the taxes for 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899. Respondent thereupon canceled the purchase made by relator on the ground that his parchase was void because he had not at the same time purchased from the state tax land list for the taxes of 1897 and 1898, and deeded the land to said Flint Land Company, Limited. Relator thereupon presented a petition to respondent, setting forth the foregoing facts, tendered the amount due for the payment of the taxes of 1897 and 1898, demanded a vacation of the order canceling his purchase, a cancellation of the conveyance to the Flint Land Company, Limited, and permission to purchase and pay the taxes for all other years charged against the land. Respondent refused to comply with this request, and this mandamus is sought to compel such compliance.

Relator's right to relief depends upon the proper construction of subdivision 4 of section 98 of the tax law (Comp. Laws 1897, � 3921). This provision authorizes the Auditor General to issue a certificate of error when 'a certificate that no taxes were charged against said land had been given by the proper officer within the time limited by law for the payment or redemption thereof.' It is contended by respondent that relator does not bring himself within this provision, that the deputy county treasurer was not the 'proper officer' therein described, and that 'the time limited by law for the payment or redemption' from said taxes had long before elapsed. Let us consider these contentions.

Relator having bid in the land for the taxes of 1896 and 1899, was obligated by law (section 70 of the tax law; Comp. Laws 1897, � 3893) to 'become the purchaser from the state tax land list, and pay the taxes, interest and charges remaining unpaid thereon' for all years for which such land is held as state tax land. See, also, section 80 (Comp. Laws 1897, � 3903). And it was likewise the duty of the deputy county treasurer conducting the sale to sell such tax interests to relator. While this transfer would have been, in form, a purchase by relator of the state's interest, it would, according to elementary principles--because relator owned the land--have been, in effect, a payment and redemption. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Bulte, 45 Mich. 113, 7 N.W. 707. It follows that relator had a right to...