King v. Sch. Dist. No. 5, of Warren Tp.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1933
• Docket Number: No. 20.,20.
• Citation: 261 Mich. 605,247 N.W. 66
• Parties: KING v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 5, OF WARREN TP., MACOMB COUNTY.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

261 Mich. 605

247 N.W. 66

KING

v.SCHOOL DIST. NO. 5, OF WARREN TP., MACOMB COUNTY.

No. 20.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 1, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Macomb County; Neil Reid, Judge.

Suit by Ray E. King against School District No. 5 of Warren Township, Macomb County. From an adverse decree, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.King & Andrews, of Detroit (Dayton W. Closser, of Mt. Clemens, of counsel), for appellant.

Austin & Newman, of Detroit, for appellee.

FEAD, Justice.

March 31, 1925, a special highway assessment, in proceedings instituted by the state highway department, became a lien on the property here involved. Twelve lots, upon each of which the tax was $13.29 or $13.30, then privately owned, were purchased by defendant school district, on warranty deed, at times from April 2 to June 1, 1925. The taxes not being paid, they were returned delinquent, included in the tax decree of 1928, sold, and bid to the state in May, and later purchased by plaintiff from the state and certificates of purchase issued to him. Defendant and its attorneys, not its present counsel, knew of the sale in June, 1929, and asked the auditor general to cancel plaintiff's certificates, which was not done. Plaintiff received his tax deeds in October, 1929. Thereafter he gave the usual notice of reconveyance, and, after the period of redemption had expired, filed this petition for writ of assistance, which the court denied.

It was stipulated that defendant paid about $12,000 for the lots, erected a school building thereon at a cost of $75,000 in 1925 or 1926. The building was in use for school purposes in September, 1926, and has been so used ever since; and defendant did not pay the tax, on advice of counsel that the property became exempt from tax proceedings when conveyed to defendant.

Defendant relies on Graham v. City of Detroit, 174 Mich. 538, 140 N. W. 949, 951,44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 836, in which it was held that the purchase or condemnation of lands for highway purposes, upon which taxes have become a lien or after the assessment is completed, deprives the auditor general of authority to sell them for taxes because--

‘These easements belong to the state, and were in use as public highways at the time they were bid in to the state for delinquent taxes.

‘The defense that plaintiff acquired no title to these lands through the state tax deed issued by the auditor general is not a collateral attack upon the decree in the tax proceedings. It challenges the power and authority of the auditor general in the name of the state to issue deeds to lands in which the state had already acquired easements for the public use as part of its public highways.’

Plaintiff relies on Public Schools of City of Iron Mountain v. O'Connor, 143 Mich. 35, 108 N. W. 426, and Triangle Land Co. v. City of Detroit, 204 Mich. 442, 170 N. W. 549, 551, 2 A. L. R. 1526. In Triangle Land Co. v. City of Detroit, both the other cases were noted, and the court held valid a tax sale and proceedings thereon, where the city had purchased the lands, after the assessment roll had been confirmed, and immediately erected a fire hall upon them. In refusing to apply the ruling in the Graham Case, the court said:

‘The obstacle to applying that rule in the instant case is that the state had no right, title, easement, or interest in, or control over, these lands. The city had bought them from private owners for municipal purposes, and was not acting for the state in its exclusive possession and control of the property for a municipal purpose. To hold that the city was acting as an agent of the state in the ownership and control of property devoted exclusively to one of its local municipal activities would be to overturn the doctrine for which cities have strenuously and successfully contended under the aegis of home rule and right of local self-government since early in the history of the state. Education and highways for the use of the people of the state at large are held to be matters of general state concern and control, while the fire departments and other purely local functions of municipalities are not.’

Later it was held that the city could not even recover compensation for improvements. City of Detroit v. Triangle Land...