Walsh v. King
| Decision Date | 12 April 1889 |
| Citation | 41 N.W. 1080,74 Mich. 350 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALSH v. KING, TAX COLLECTOR, ET AL. |
Appeal from circuit court, St. Clair county, in chancery; ARTHUR L CANFIELD, Judge.
Bill by Robert Walsh against James King, tax collector of the First ward of the city of Port Huron, and said city, defendants, to restrain the collection of certain taxes assessed against complainant. From a decree dismissing his bill the latter appeals.
The complainant filed his bill in the circuit court for the county of St. Clair, in chancery, to enjoin the collection of certain taxes assessed upon his real and personal property in the city of Port Huron. A preliminary injunction was allowed. Upon a motion to dissolve the same, an order was made that the complainant pay into court the full amount of his taxes to abide a final decree in the premises, and to be applied in payment of the taxes, should the bill be dismissed. The full amount of such taxes was paid into court. The defendants then filed a general demurrer to the bill, and, on argument, the court below sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill, and directed the money so paid into court to be applied by the register in satisfaction of the tax. From this decree the complainant appeals.
The bill of complaint, in substance, charges: (1) That the comptroller and the supervisors of the several wards of the city of Port Huron, at a meeting held for that purpose before the assessment was made in the spring and winter of 1887, entered into a corrupt and fraudulent agreement with Hebner, Runnels, Forbes, Sinclair, and others, owning vessel property in said city, subject to taxation, by which all vessel property owned in said city should be assessed at one-tenth of the insurable value thereof, as shown by the underwriters' register for 1886; that such agreement was carried out on the part of the comptroller and supervisors, and such vessel property assessed at exactly one-tenth of its insurable value, as shown by such register. (2) That the insurable value of such property, as shown by said register, is much less than its true cash value, and that fact was known to the comptroller and supervisors of the several wards when this fraudulent and corrupt agreement was made. (3) That the comptroller and supervisors of the several wards, without viewing or examining this class of property, or taking any steps to ascertain its true cash value, assessed it at one-tenth of its insurable value as shown by said register, but assessed other property at its true cash value. (4) That by such corrupt and fraudulent agreement over $450,000 worth of this class of property was assessed at $39,665, exactly one-tenth of its insurable value; that this was not the result of a mistake or misjudgment as to its value, but a willful and deliberate violation of the principles of taxation, made knowingly, and for the purpose of relieving vessel property from its just and proper proportion of the burden of taxation, and cast its proportion on other real and personal property in the city; that as a result over $400,000 worth of vessel property in the city escaped taxation, and the proportion it should have borne, if properly assessed, is cast on the other real and personal property of the city. (5) That the assessment rolls are fair on their face, and these facts do not appear of record in the proceedings taken to levy, assess, and collect such taxes. (6) That he is wholly unable to ascertain or determine his just proportion of such taxes, and cannot tender the same, but offers by his bill to pay, if the same can be ascertained." The bill prays for a preliminary injunction against the collection of the tax, or any part thereof, and that such injunction may be made permanent upon the hearing. Also that such taxes may be decreed a cloud on the real estate of complainant set out in an exhibit attached to the bill, and that the court cancel the taxes assessed upon his real and personal property set forth in the same exhibit, and cancel and discharge the lien and cloud created thereby on his real estate; and that the complainant have such other further or different relief as is equitable and just in the view of the court.
It is claimed by the defendants that the preliminary injunction should not have issued, and, being issued in...
To continue reading
Request your trial