Seymour v. Peters

• Decision Date: 27 October 1887
• Citation: 35 N.W. 62,67 Mich. 415
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SEYMOUR and another v. PETERS.

35 N.W. 62

67 Mich. 415

SEYMOUR and another v. PETERS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 27, 1887

Error to circuit court, Manistee county; J. BYRON JUDKINS, Judge.

A.J Dovel, for defendant, appellant.

Ramsdell & Benedict and A.V. McAlvay, for appellees.

CHAMPLIN J.

The action in this case is trover for a quantity of pine saw-logs. The suit was commenced by declaration filed and served on the second day of February, 1886. The conversion of the logs is alleged to have occurred on the thirtieth day of January, 1886. The logs were cut by plaintiffs, marked with their mark, and deposited upon skidways near a railroad owned and operated by defendant from whence they were to be transported by rail to Manistee lake. They were cut from the S.E. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 5, in township 20 N., range 17 W. Defendant, claiming to have bought the logs from one Carrie L. Munn some time in January, 1886, took possession of the logs, and removed them in the night-time, cut out the plaintiff's marks, and placed his own upon them. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the logs through tax titles from the state of Michigan, by auditor general's deed, for delinquent taxes for the years 1859 to 1864, both inclusive. The defendant attacked the validity of these tax titles for several reasons, which will be stated further on.

Counsel for plaintiffs deny the right of the defendant to contest the validity of the plaintiffs' tax deeds, and he invokes the provision of section 1166 of Howell's Statutes to support his position. This section of the statute was not enacted until 1869, and stood as section 164 of that act. That act was prospective, and the point raised was adjudicated in Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 373, and need not be further noticed.

Objection is made to the validity of the tax deeds for the reason that corrected assessment rolls in the hands of the supervisors did not contain the taxes assessed against the several parcels of land in the township, and the assessment rolls and tax-list placed in the hands of the treasurer for collection for the years 1859, 1861, and 1863, were not copies of the assessment rolls remaining in the hands of the supervisors. It appears that the supervisor of the town of Freesoil, in which these lands were situated, did not in any of the years mentioned extend the taxes upon his corrected assessment roll, except one year, and then only partially so, and in that case the taxes on the corrected roll did not agree with those upon the copy of the assessment roll and tax-list delivered to the township treasurer. It is claimed by defendant's counsel that this is a fatal defect, and renders the levy and tax deeds void. On the other hand, plaintiffs' counsel contend that the law neither required nor contemplated that the supervisor should extend the taxes assessed by him upon the corrected assessment roll, but only that he should copy the assessments upon such roll as corrected, and extend the taxes upon such copy. The question is an important one, for, if the defendant's position is correct, it disposes of the merits of the controversy, for the reason that the titles through which the plaintiffs claim would thereby be invalid, so far as it depends upon those years. It certainly has been the understanding of this court that the taxes assessed must be extended upon the corrected assessment roll which the supervisor receives from the board of supervisors, and which the law requires shall remain in his office. In Ferton v. Feller, 33 Mich. 203, Mr. Justice GRAVES, speaking for the court, said: "The roll first made by the supervisor is carried before the board, and after final correction there, and after its authentication by the chairman, it is delivered to the supervisor, who is required to file and keep it in his office. Section 995, Comp.Laws 1857. No other roll is brought to the attention of the board, and this alone receives the sanction of the board. With this before him, and the requisite certificates and statements in regard to the taxes to be levied, and their destination, the supervisor is required to proceed to assess according and in proportion to the particular and individual estimate and valuation specified in the assessment roll. Section 999, Comp.Laws 1857. He is next to make the collection roll, and this is required to be a copy of the corrected roll in his office. Section 1002, Comp.Laws 1857. As this correspondence is indispensable in the first instance, its continuance is equally indispensable. The symmetry of the proceedings, the consistency of the records, and the dependence of the collection roll upon the first roll and their legal connection, all alike require it. As the first is to remain in the supervisor's office as a public record or memorial, so the collection roll is to go ultimately to the county treasurer's office for the same purpose. Section 1023, Comp.Laws 1857. The entire theory of the system and all the regulations contemplate that these documents shall be and continue substantially alike, and in all essential particulars speak the same language when referred to. No lawful change can be made in the collection roll, unless warranted by the state of the roll having the sanction of the board of supervisors, and consequently the collection roll cannot legally be changed so as to be in substantial disagreement with the other."

Notwithstanding this decision, which is directly in point, counsel for plaintiffs insist that we have misconceived the intention of the legislature, and the language of the law relative to the assessment and collection of taxes, and that it did not require the assessment of the taxes to be entered upon the original assessment roll. And they call...