Van Husen v. Heames

• Decision Date: 25 July 1893
• Citation: 56 N.W. 22,96 Mich. 504
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: VAN HUSEN v. HEAMES, Register of Deeds.

56 N.W. 22

96 Mich. 504

VAN HUSEN v. HEAMES, Register of Deeds.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 25, 1893

Mandamus proceeding by Harry C. Van Husen, relator, against John A Heames, register of deeds of Wayne county, to compel defendant to receive and record a certain instrument conveying land in such county. Writ denied.

Wells, Angell, Boynton & McMillan, for relator. A A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., and O. F. Hunt, Asst. Pros. Atty., for respondent.

GRANT J.

Section 135 of Act No. 206, Laws of 1893, reads as follows "When any deed, land contract, plat of any town site, village, or addition to any town site, village, or city plat, or other instrument for the conveyance of title to any real estate, is presented to the register of deeds of any county in this state for record or filing in his office, he shall require of the person presenting the same a certificate from the auditor general, or from the county treasurer of the county, whether there are any tax liens or titles held by the state, or any individual, against such piece or description of land sought to be conveyed by such instrument, and that all taxes due thereon have been paid for the five years preceding the date of such instrument, and in default of the presentation of such certificate he shall not record the same until such certificate is secured and presented. The register of deeds shall note the fact upon said deed that such certificate has or has not been presented to him when such instrument is presented for record, and in case the person presenting such instrument shall refuse to procure such certificate, he shall indorse that fact upon said instrument, over his official signature, and shall refuse to receive and record the same: provided, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the filing of any town or village plat for the purpose of incorporation, in so far as the land therein embraced is included in a plat already filed in the office of the register of deeds, or in so far as the description of lands therein is not changed by such plat, nor to the filing of a copy of any town, village, or city plat in case the original plat filed in the office of such register of deeds has been lost or destroyed, nor to any sheriff or commissioner's deed executed for the sale of lands under any proceeding in law, or by virtue of any decree of any of the courts of this state, or any deed of trust by any assignee, executor, or corporation executed pursuant to any law of this state. A violation of the provisions of this section by any register of deeds shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, he shall be fined not to exceed one hundred dollars, and he shall further be liable to the grantee of any instrument so recorded for the amount of damages sustained, to be recovered in an action for debt in any court of this state." Relator contends that this section is void, for the following reasons, viz.: First. (a) The title to the act does not cover the section; (b) the act embraces more than one object. Second. Its provisions cannot be complied with by the officers named. Third. It is an unwarrantable infringement of property rights.

1. The evident purpose of the provisions of this section is to secure the collection of taxes, which is one of the general objects stated in the title to the act. We think, therefore, that the section cannot be held void, under section 20, art. 4, of the constitution. The rule of construction in such cases is stated in City of Grand Rapids v. Burlingame, 93 Mich. 472, 53 N.W. 620, as follows: "If the title expresses a general purpose, all matters fairly and reasonably connected with that purpose and all measures which would facilitate its accomplishment, would not be in...