People ex rel. Flint & Pere Marquette Railway Company v. County Treasurer of Saginaw County

Decision Date15 June 1875
Citation32 Mich. 260
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesThe People on the relation of the Flint & Pere Marquette Railway Company v. The County Treasurer of Saginaw County

Heard June 15, 1875

Application for Mandamus.

Mandamus is sought to require the respondent to accept moneys tendered him for redemption of lands sold for taxes. The amount tendered was the sum for which the lands were sold, with interest at the rate of twenty-five per cent., in accordance with the provisions of the tax law, as amended by the act of 1875 (Laws of 1875, Act No. 17); but the treasurer declined to receive it, on the ground that the act, as it stood before the amendment (Comp. L. 1871, § 1059), required the payment of interest at fifty per cent., and that, as these lands were sold for the taxes before the amendment, the original act, and not the amended one, was applicable; and that, therefore, the tender was insufficient in amount. Under the original act, the fifty per cent. required to be paid was one-half of it directed to be paid over by the state treasurer to the purchaser, and the residue went to the state, and was passed to the credit of the general fund. Under the amended act, the whole twenty-five per cent. was required to be paid over by the state treasurer to the purchaser. The purchaser, therefore, received the same amount under either statute.

Writ granted.

William L. Webber, for relator.

A. J Smith, Attorney General, for respondent, cited Smith v Auditor General, 20 Mich. 398.

OPINION

The Court held that the amended section took the place of and repealed the original one; and, being the only act in force providing for redemption, it must govern; that it must be assumed that such was the intention of the legislature, as the only alternative would be to infer an intention to cut off all right of redemption as to prior sales, which would not only be contrary to the uniform state policy in that regard, and therefore not to be deduced by slight inference, but it would, moreover, affect injuriously the rights of those who before were entitled to redeem; that the additional twenty-five per cent. required by the prior act was paid into the state treasury as a mere gratuity, which the state has the right to forego, since it does not affect at all the rights of the purchasers at the tax sales; that this payment, though called interest, is not in the nature of interest, but is rather to be regarded in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Jones v. Williams, 6051.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • December 23, 1931
    ...Okl. 478, 134 P. 961; People ex rel. Johnson v. Peacock, 98 Ill. 172; People v. Smith, 94 Ill. 226; People ex rel. Flint & Pere Marquette Ry. Co. v. Saginaw County Treasurer, 32 Mich. 260; Drennan v. Herzog, 56 Mich. 467, 23 N. W. 170; Billings v. U. S., 232 U. S. 261, 34 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. ......
  • People v. Lowell
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 7, 1930
    ...v. Barnes Paper Co., 172 Mich. 586, 138 N. W. 211, to the same effect, People v. Hiller was cited with approval. See also People v. Treasurer, 32 Mich. 260;Breitung v. Lindauer, 37 Mich. 217;Boughner v. City of Bay City, 156 Mich. 193, 120 N. W. 597; 36 Cyc. 1083; Brill Cyclopedia Criminal ......
  • Henry v. McKay
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 24, 1931
    ...if this is the construction to be given to the law, the law is invalid, as interfering with vested rights. * * * ' In People v. Saginaw County Treasurer, 32 Mich. 260, it was held that the law of 1871 in relation to redemption of lands sold for taxes was amended by the law of 1875, and 'tha......
  • City of Detroit v. Safety Inv. Corp.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 4, 1939
    ...to tax liens of an earlier date than the effective date of the amendment. This argument is answered by People ex rel. Flint & P. M. R. Co. v. County Treasurer of Saginaw, 32 Mich. 260. Nor is the provision unconstitutional because of its retroactive character. Muirhead v. Sands, 111 Mich. 4......
  • 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