Sloman-Polk Co. v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 01 March 1933
• Docket Number: No. 22.,22.
• Citation: 261 Mich. 689,247 N.W. 95
• Parties: SLOMAN-POLK CO. v. CITY OF DETROIT et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

261 Mich. 689

247 N.W. 95

SLOMAN-POLK CO.

v.CITY OF DETROIT et al.

No. 22.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 1, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; William H. Martin, Judge.

Suit by Sloman-Polk Company against the City of Detroit and another. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Everett H. Wells, of Detroit, for appellant.

Walter Barlow, of Detroit (Clarence E. Wilcox, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellees.

FEAD, Justice.

This is a bill to set aside the 1931 assessment for taxes on plaintiff's real estate in Detroit, and to order or make a new assessment, upon which plaintiff offers to pay. No testimony was taken. The bill was dismissed upon the pleadings and plaintiff's offer of proof, which must be accepted as true.

The assessment was made as of April 1st. The taxes became a lien July 15th. Plaintiff paid half the taxes under protest in July, and commenced this suit in August.

In 1930 the property was assessed at $388,000. In 1931, plaintiff made complaint to the board of assessors, who valued it at $373,400. On appeal, the board of review reduced it to $317,790, and the board of state tax commissioners, to $307,790, at which amount it went on the roll.

Plaintiff, while not attacking the personal good faith of the assessing and reviewing officers, claims the assessment was fraudulent in law. It offered to prove that, by reason of the business depression, values had shrunk greatly since 1930, and the property was worth not to exceed $200,000 in 1931; that the city officers admitted that the assessment of plaintiff's property as set by them was excessive, was more than the ‘true cash value’; that the city officers did not consider the depressed existing market, but made the assessments on the basis of former years in order to maintain the financial position of the city of Detroit; and that the board of state tax commissioners denied it a hearing on testimony of values for the stated reason that, if plaintiff's assessment were reduced, it would be necessary to reassess the whole district.

The general principles are not in doubt. The law requires the assessment to be made at true cash value. The officers do not claim that the depression had made values of real estate so uncertain that there was no other reasonable standard for assessment in 1931 than that of former years, nor that they used their best judgment as to present values. Intentional overassessment is fraud. A court of equity has jurisdiction to relieve against such fraud. The relief to be granted is reduction of plaintiff's taxes to their just proportion of the public burden. Merrill v. Humphrey, 24 Mich. 170;Fletcher Paper Co. v. City of Alpena, 160 Mich. 462, 125 N. W. 405;Story & Clark Piano Co....