Township of Caledonia v. Rose

• Decision Date: 22 December 1892
• Citation: 94 Mich. 216,53 N.W. 927
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: TOWNSHIP OF CALEDONIA v. ROSE.

53 N.W. 927

94 Mich. 216

TOWNSHIP OF CALEDONIA v. ROSE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 22, 1892

Error to circuit court, Shiawassee county; WILLIAM NEWTON, Judge.

Action by the township of Caledonia against Edward Rose. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Walter McBride, for appellant.

S S. Miner, for appellee.

GRANT, J.

This suit was brought to recover a tax of $95.40 assessed against the defendant for the year 1890 upon an assessment of $15,000 personal estate. Verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff. The board of review of the township met on Tuesday next following the third Monday of May, continued in session for five consecutive days, and then adjourned sine die. It did not meet on the fourth Monday of May, as the statute requires. 3 How. St. � 1170 b8. The circuit judge instructed the jury that, inasmuch as the board did not meet as the law required, plaintiff could not recover, unless they found as a matter of fact that defendant did own the full amount of the property in value spread upon the roll, in which case the assessment, though irregular, would not prejudice defendant's rights. Defendant resided in the township, but was absent from the state during the week that the board was in session. He knew that the board was required to meet on the fourth Monday in May, and returned home Saturday night, in order to appear before the board of review the following Monday, and protest against his assessment. He went to the place of meeting on Monday, where he found the supervisor, who informed him that the board had adjourned. He then asked to have it reconvened, so that he might appear before it, and present his evidence against his assessment. The supervisor declined to reconvene the board. The sole question of fact upon the trial was whether the defendant owned the amount of property placed upon the roll. The testimony upon this question was conflicting, and the verdict of the jury is conclusive as to the fact. The sole question therefore, is, did the failure of the board of review to meet at the required time vitiate the tax against the defendant? We think the question settled in favor of the defendant. Cooley, Tax'n, (2d Ed.) 366, 422, 748, 751; Slaughter v. City, (Ky.) 8 S.W. Rep. 917; To view preceding link please click here Woodman v Auditor General, 52 Mich. 28, 17 N.W. 227; Avery v East Saginaw, 44 Mich. 587, 7 N.W. 177. The board of review is a tribunal provided by law, in which the taxpayer may appear to contest an unequal or excessive assessment. Failing to appear there, he is estopped to assail the assessment afterwards. Comstock v. Grand Rapids, 54 Mich. 641, 20 N.W. 623; Peninsula Iron Co. v. Crystal Falls, 60 Mich. 510, 27 N.W. 666; Williams v. Saginaw, 51 Mich. 120, 16 N.W. 260; Bank v. St. Joseph, 46 Mich. 526, 9 N.W. 838. It was held in Williams v. Saginaw that the question whether an assessment is excessive is not for the courts to try, but that the board of review is the only tribunal to try and determine that question. Defendant was therefore entitled to his "day in court" before that tribunal. The provision of the statute requiring the board to meet upon the days named is mandatory, and it cannot deprive the taxpayer of his hearing there, and thereby force him to a suit at law to obtain redress. Defendant was entitled to assume that the board would remain in session the full length of time provided by the statute, and to arrange to be present any day he chose. But it is insisted that this case falls within the curative provisions of the statute, and that the verdict of the jury is conclusive that the defendant was not prejudiced by the action of the...