Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Assessors of Detroit

• Decision Date: 28 April 1893
• Citation: 55 N.W. 112,95 Mich. 466
• Parties: STANDARD LIFE & ACC. INS. CO. v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF DETROIT.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

55 N.W. 112

95 Mich. 466

STANDARD LIFE & ACC. INS. CO. v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF DETROIT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 28, 1893

Proceeding by the Standard Life & Accident Insurance Company against the board of assessors of Detroit for a writ of mandamus requiring defendants to deduct from the assessment made against plaintiff the amount of the real-estate mortgages held by it. Writ granted.

Keena & Lightner, for relator. John J. Speed, for respondents.

MONTGOMERY J.

The tax law of 1891 (Act No. 200, Pub. Acts 1891) provided for the assessment, as personal property, of all shares in banks organized in this state under any law of this state or of the United States, at their cash value, after deducting the value of the real estate taxed to the banks. It also provided that in computing the taxable property of insurance companies organized under the laws of this state, the value of the real property on which the company pays taxes shall be deducted from its net assets above all liabilities, as determined and shown by the last report of the commissioner of insurance and the remainder shall be the amount for which the company shall be assessed. In the case of Common Council of City of Detroit v. Board, etc., of City of Detroit, 91 Mich 78, 51 N.W. 787, it was held that Act No. 200, above referred to, was intended to treat real-estate mortgages as an interest in realty, for the purpose of taxation, and that the amount of real-estate mortgages assessed to banks and insurance companies should be deducted from their assets, in making the assessment. By an act of the present legislature the provisions of Act 200 have been amended by adding a proviso to each of sections 2 and 4 of the tax law of 1891 which provides as to each that no such deduction shall be made for real-estate mortgages owned by such banks or insurance companies. In the present case, relator contends that this provision is unconstitutional. Sections 11, 12, art. 14, of the constitution, read as follows: "Sec. 11. The legislature shall provide a uniform rule of taxation, except on property paying specific taxes, and taxes shall be levied on such property as shall be prescribed by law. Sec. 12. All assessments hereafter authorized shall be on property at its cash value." It is clear, in so far as the amendments to sections 2 and 4 attempt to provide that banks and insurance companies shall not have deducted from their assets the amount of...