Moser v. White
| Decision Date | 29 January 1874 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles Moser v. Myron White and others |
Heard January 16, 1874
Error to Macomb Circuit.
Trespass. Plaintiff brings error. Judgment of circuit court reversed and justice's judgment affirmed.
Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and the justice's judgment affirmed, with costs of both courts.
Hubbard & Crocker, for plaintiff in error.
Edgar Weeks and Hoyt Post, for defendants in error.
Christiancy J., did not sit in this case.
Plaintiff recovered a judgment before a justice of the peace in Macomb county, against the village authorities of Mt. Clemens for trespass in seizing and selling his property to pay an illegal village tax. This judgment was reversed on certiorari in the circuit court, and is now brought before us by writ of error.
The questions of informality in the tax-roll on which reliance was chiefly made for reversing the justice's judgment, become unimportant in view of the conceded fact that the council of the village of Mt. Clemens never passed any resolution and took no action of record to determine what taxes should be raised for the year in question.
The village charter authorizes the village council to lay taxes for village purposes. But such a body can only act by resolution or by-law, adopted at a meeting, and the proceedings of such meetings cannot be left in parol. Every essential proceeding in the course of a levy of taxes must appear in some written and permanent form in the records of the bodies authorized to act upon them. Such a thing as a parol levy of taxes is not legally possible under our laws.
It is claimed, however, that the curing act of February 28, 1873, entitled "An act to legalize the tax-roll of the village of Mt. Clemens for the year 1872," does away with the force of the objection.
That act does, in terms, purport to heal all the defects which have been pointed out. But plaintiff's judgment was obtained before the justice before this act was passed. If regular when obtained, it could not be reversed. The Legislature have no authority to reverse judgments, directly or indirectly. The effect of the act must be so limited as not to interfere with an existing judgment, or it would be necessary to declare it void on principles which are too elementary to be discussed. The case had been already tried and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinton v. General Motors Corp.
...102, 123-124, 19 S.Ct. 134, 141-142, 43 L.Ed. 382 (1898). See also Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall) 408, 1 L.Ed. 436 (1792).20 Moser v. White, 29 Mich. 59, 60 (1874).21 Butler v. Saginaw Co. Bd. of Supervisors, 26 Mich. 22, 27 (1872).22 Redish, Federal judicial independence: Constitutional a......
-
Powers v. Larabee
... ... form in the record of the bodies authorized to act upon them ... Cooley on Taxation, 247; Desty on Taxation, 1087; Nosme ... v. White, 29 Mich. 59. There was no legal sale for the ... reason that the amount of taxes due, given in the notice ... prescribed by statute, was only ... ...
-
Wells County v. McHenry
...course of a levy of taxes must appear in some written and permanent form in the record of the bodies authorized to act upon them. Moser v. White, 29 Mich. 59; of Powers, 29 Mich. 504; Doe v. McQuilkin, 8 Blackf. 335; 2 Desty, 1066. The failure of the board of equalization to meet was fatal ......
-
Wylie v. City Comm'n of Grand Rapids
...a judicial decision or repeal the final judgment entered. People ex rel. Butler v. Supervisors of Saginaw County, 26 Mich. 22;Moser v. White, 29 Mich. 59;Denny v. Mattoon, 2 Allen, Mass., 361, 79 Am.Dec. 784;Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 234 Mass. 612, 127 N.E. 635;McManus v. Horna......