Stockle v. Silsbee

• Decision Date: 14 October 1878
• Citation: 41 Mich. 615,2 N.W. 900
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HENRY STOCKLE and others v. AMANDA SILSBEE.

2 N.W. 900

41 Mich. 615

HENRY STOCKLE and others v. AMANDA SILSBEE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 14, 1878

Various objections to the validity of certain tax proceedings considered, and the findings thereon held insufficient to sustain the judgment as to their invalidity.

Winsor & Snover and H.B. Carpenter, for plaintiff in error.

H.H Hoyt, for defendant in error.

COOLEY J.

This case was tried in the circuit court without a jury, and comes before us on a finding of facts. The question raised is whether the finding is sufficient to support the judgment.

The action was ejectment, and Silsbee was plaintiff. She claimed the land under a patent by the United States, and it is not disputed that she made out a prima facie right. But this prima facie case was overcome by the defendants, who showed that they held the land under deed given by the auditor general on sales made thereof for delinquent taxes assessed in the years 1869, 1870, 1871 and 1872. On the case as it then stood the defendants were entitled to judgment, and it only remains to see whether the invalidity of these deeds was established.

The circuit judge seems to have found the deeds invalid on a showing which satisfied him that taxes were illegally assessed or illegally returned every year.

In reviewing the case it is a little embarrassing not to find the defects which are supposed to be fatal pointed out especially as the finding recites many irregularities, some of which are obviously trivial and unimportant, and unworthy of a moment's consideration. Possibly some of these may have seemed to the court fatal, but the time has gone by, if it ever was, when the proceedings of taxing officers are to be criticised with microscopic nicety, and the exact time and method of every step examined to detect a departure from the law, however insignificant or unconstitutional. The policy of the law is that parties shall pay legal taxes, even though there may be some irregularity in demanding them, and that they shall complain to the courts of those errors only which may injure them. The possibility of collecting the state revenue depends upon the observance of this policy, and we do not feel called upon to examine in detail every irregularity which a record may show.

It is probable that in no tax case have all the proceedings been exactly and punctiliously correct, but they are sufficiently so for legal purposes in any case, if no error is committed which can prejudice the person taxed. Club v. Crane, 5 Mich. 151; Smith v. Crittenden, 16 Mich. 152; Bird v. Perkins, 33 Mich. 29. By this policy the several tax titles in question are to be tested, and in the light of it we shall examine such objections as seem important.

Taking up first the title for 1869, the finding of facts states that it is based in part upon state and county taxes returned as delinquent. It is not shown that any particular township, school or highway tax was among those for which the sale was made, and any one of them might have been separately paid. The validity of no one of them is therefore in question here. No objection is made to the state or county tax which can be considered plausible, and it only remains to see whether there was any fatal defect in the proceedings leading to the sale.

It is said that the township treasurer did not file with the county treasurer, in due season, his bond as collector of county and state taxes, and that on his failure to do so it was the duty of the county treasurer to deliver the tax roll, not to him but to the sheriff. Comp.Laws, � 1027. It is shown, however, that he filed his bond, and that thereupon he received the tax roll, and it does not appear that the sheriff ever contested his right to it. He was unquestionably collector de facto if not de jure, and if any question of his right could exist, it could not be raised by these parties in this collateral way. His acts as collector are valid, whether in point of strict law he was entitled to the tax roll or not. Facey v. Fuller, 13 Mich. 527; Johns v. People, 25 Mich. 499; Bird v. Perkins, 33 Mich. 28.

The return made by the township treasurer to the county treasurer is also said to be insufficient. The defects are that it is not signed and sworn to by the township treasurer, nor certified by the county treasurer as required by the statute. Comp.Laws, �� 1019, 1020. But the circuit judge does not find the fact to be as alleged. The county treasurer's evidence tends to show that the return was completed in due form, but that the original was transmitted to Lansing instead of being retained in his own office, as it should have been. This was irregular, but the mistake was a very harmless one.

We, therefore, discover in the finding no fatal defect in the sale for the taxes of 1869 indicated, and what has been said respecting it is equally true in respect to the sale for the taxes of 1870.

The sale for 1871 is found to have been made "for said state, county, and other taxes." Although this is a little indefinite, it is, perhaps, to be understood as a statement that the sale was made for all the taxes mentioned in the finding as having been levied for that year. This would include township, highway and school taxes, as well as those levied for the state and county. For highway purposes taxes were voted by the town for the year as follows: Highway purposes, without further specification, $200; to chop out road, $40; to build road, $20; for bridge over Pigeon river, $100; for bridge over Shebeon creek, $150. All these might have been legal, and the question is whether they are shown to be illegal.

The statute requires the commissioner of highways to render annually to the township board an...