Silsbee v. Stockle
| Decision Date | 10 November 1880 |
| Citation | 7 N.W. 160,44 Mich. 561 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | SILSBEE v. STOCKLE and another. |
It is not improper for the supervisor to add a general highway tax voted by a town to its regular highway assessment. A township authorized to vote a general tax for highways, not to exceed five mills, voted and levied a tax for such purpose of eight and a half mills. Held, that the excess would defeat a sale for taxes, the aggaegate of which was in part composed of the excessive highway tax. Equalization of assessment rolls held sufficient. Resolution of the board of supervisors need not be presented in writing. Where a township tax levied was greater than that voted, held, that it would be presumed that it was properly increased by the township board.
The statute provided that a tax for the county agricultural society might be levied if a certain certificate of its president and secretary was presented to the board of supervisors. A tax having been levied, and the county clerk testifying that he could not find such certificate in his office, held, that it would presumed to have been made and presented, and the testimony of a member of the board to the effect that he did not recollect whether it was presented or not, would not rebut such presumption. Where equalization had been made in June, failure to make an equalization in October held not fatal. Surveyor's tax held not to appear to have been unlawful. An omission, in a supervisor's certificate of assessment of real estate, of the words "and not at the price it would sell for at forced or auction sale," as prescribed in the statutory form in the revision of the tax law of 1869, is fatal to the assessment. The rule that a tax sale made upon an excessive levy, so that it is based on the illegal as well as legal taxes, is void, is not changed by section 1129, Comp.Laws. Such section, so far as it is applicable to such cases, is invalid.
Error to Huron.
H.H. Hoyt, for plaintiff in error.
Winsor & Snover and H.B. Carpenter, for defendants in error.
This case was once before this court, and the opinion then given resulted in a new trial. Stockle v. Silsbee, 41 Mich. 615. It is ejectment to recover lands the original title to which is held by the plaintiff. The lands were returned for the non-payment of taxes of 1869, 1870, 1871 1872, and were bid in for the state in each of those years. Afterwards the state sold them, and defendants hold the state conveyance. The plaintiff claims that the tax levy was void in each of the four years; and the controversy turns wholly upon this allegation. The land consists of 120 acres lying in one body in the township of Fair Haven, Huron county. The objections to the tax levy are numerous, and some of them we think too plainly frivolous to require even a mention. The others are the following:
1. The highway tax for 1869 is said to have been excessive. The valuation of the land for that year was $180, and a highway tax of $3.15 was levied. The regular highway assessment is in labor, but this, when not performed, becomes a money tax which under the statute cannot exceed 1 per cent. of the valuation. Comp.Laws, �� 1228, 1241. But the township has authority to vote a general levy for highways; and this seems to have been done for the year in question, and the sum voted goes to make up the highway tax which the roll shows. It is objected that a tax thus voted constitutes a part of the township tax, and must appear in the column of township taxes on the roll. Case v. Dean, 16 Mich. 12. We think however, that the supervisor was correct in adding it to the other highway tax. Comp.Laws, � 1002.
Unfortunately however, the township voted a larger sum than the statute permits. The authority is expressly limited to a sum not exceeding 5 mills per centum upon the aggregate valuation of the property in the township, (Comp.Laws, � 1269;) but the amount actually voted and levied exceeded 8 1/2 mills per centum. This excess, under the previous decisions of this court, was sufficient to defeat any sale made for an aggregate of taxes of which the highway tax formed a part. Lacy v. Davis, 4 Mich. 140; Buell v. Irwin, 24 Mich. 145; Wattles v. Lapeer, 40 Mich. 624.
2. The equalization of assessment rolls by the board of supervisors for the year 1869 is said to be defective, but the criticism made is altogether overnice and technical. The record of the board shows that the committee on equalization made a report, to which was appended a tabular statement giving the names of the townships, the assessed valuation, the increase or decrease, if any was proposed, and the proposed equalized valuation. This report, the record shows, after an alteration in respect to Fair Haven, "was accepted and adopted as the equalization of the county."
The objections to this seem to be--First, that neither the report of the committee nor any resolution adopting it was in writing, and that there can be no sufficient record without it; and, second, that the equalization was of real and personal property both, while under the statute the board are to judge of the relative valuations of real estate only. The first objection aims at the matter of form only. It might perhaps be better if all reports and resolutions in deliberative bodies were made and offered in writing, but there is no law or custom requiring it. The second objection is equally baseless. The board, after determining whether the relative valuations of real property are disproportionate, are required to make the additions or deductions they find necessary to or from the whole taxable property of the township. Comp.Laws, � 993. That is what was done here.
3. It is further objected that there was no proper action of the board of supervisors determining the amount of money to be raised for county purposes. The record upon this subject is as follows: "Committee on finance submitted the following report, which on motion was accepted, and the resolution to raise the respective sums adopted: For state tax, $1,980.27; poor fund, $400; contingent fund, $6,261.68." Here again is no written resolution, but the clerk has taken down the substance of one submitted orally, and the record is as full and complete as is to be expected. There is no defect in matter of substance.
4. In the levy for 1870 was included a township tax of $150. The township had voted only $125, and it is therefore claimed the levy was excessive. But the township board had a right to increase the sum voted when necessary; Comp.Laws,� 751; and it must be presumed in the absence of any showing to the contrary that they did so in this case. Upton v. Kennedy, 36 Mich. 215; Stockle v. Silsbee, 41 Mich. 615.
5. There was levied for the year 1870 a tax of one-tenth of a mill on the valuation, in aid of the county agricultural society. The statute authorized such a tax only when the sworn certificate of the president and secretary of the society, that the society itself had raised for the year $100 or more, was presented to the supervisors. Comp.Laws, � 2163. When the trial took place the county clerk could find no such certificate in his office; and the plaintiff requested the court to submit to the jury the question whether one was made. This was refused. The presumption is that the proper certificate was presented. Upton v. Kennedg, 26 Mich. 215; Hogelskamp v. Weeks, 37 Mich. 422.
The only evidence appearing in the record which could have been submitted to the jury as having a contrary tendency was that of a member of the board of supervisors for the year, who testified that he had no recollection whether a certificate was or was not presented. But this mere negative declaration was of no force, and there was nothing in it to go to the jury as tending to rebut the legal presumption that the action of the supervisors was based upon a proper certificate.
6. For the year 1871 there was no equalization of the assessment rolls at the October session, as is required by Comp.Laws, � 993. It appears, however, that one was made by the board at its June session, as is required every fifth year by Comp.Laws, � 301. As the board is composed of the same persons in June and in October, and a new equalization would be an idle formality, we are not inclined to hold that a failure to go through with that formality in October is fatal.
7. The warrant appended to the tax roll for 1871 indicates that a surveyors' tax of $13.53 was included in the levy; and for this it is claimed there was no authority of law. The statute, however, authorizes a levy to be made in some cases on particular parcels of land, to meet the cost of their survey; Comp.Laws, � 595; so that presumptively this tax may have been lawfully laid. There is no showing and no claim that any part of it was levied on the land in controversy.
8. The most serious defect which is pointed out in any of the proceedings, is found in the supervisor's certificate to the assessment roll for the years 1870, 1871, 1872. Section 991, Comp.Laws, under which these assessments were made, is as follows:
"When the supervisor has ruled and completed the assessment roll it shall be his duty to attach thereto, signed by him, a certificate, which may be in the following form: 'I do hereby certify that I have set down in the above assessment roll, all the real estate in the township of _________, liable to be taxed, according to my best information; that I have estimated the same at what 1 believed to be the true cash value thereof, and not the price it would sell for at a forced or auction sale; that the said assessment roll contains a true statement of the aggregate valuation of the taxable personal estate of each and every person named in said roll, and that I have estimated the same at...
To continue reading
Request your trial