Youngs v. Peters
| Decision Date | 18 July 1898 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | YOUNGS v. PETERS ET AL. |
Appeal from circuit court, Marquette county; John W. Stone, Judge.
Bill by Clark W. Youngs against Robert Peters and others. There was an order issuing a writ of assistance, and respondents appeal. Affirmed.
Clark & Pearl, for appellants.
W. S Hill (J. E. Ball, of counsel), for appellee.
Petition for writ of assistance. Petitioner became a purchaser of the lands in controversy at the annual tax sales in 1896, under a decree made in the circuit court, in chancery, for Marquette county. He petitioned for a writ of assistance; and the respondents, in answer to an order to show cause, replied (1) That it was an attempt to eject respondents from their possession of the property without their having had their day in court before a jury, and in contravention of section 27 of article 6 of the constitution of this state; (2) that the court of chancery acquired no jurisdiction to render a decree against the land because no personal service of notice was given to the owner of the land, though he resided within said county, and that the law providing for publication of notice, and thus attempting to give the court jurisdiction, is in contravention to the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States; (3) that the decree had not been enrolled before sale; (4) that the county treasurer did not make a report of sale to the auditor general within the time prescribed by the tax law; (5) that the owner of the land had personal property from which the tax might have been collected. On the coming in of the answer, the court below granted the order issuing the writ of assistance.
The questions raised by respondents in the first and second points above stated are fully discussed and decided adversely to respondents' contention in Ball v. Copper Co. (decided at the present term) 76 N.W. 130.
We think the proposition that no sale could be made until after enrollment has no force. The statute prescribes a time for the sale to take place, which precludes the application of How. Ann. St. �� 6648, 6649.
Chancery rule 24 cannot overrule the tax law, which provides when the deeds may issue. See, also, Hochgraef v. Hendrie, 66 Mich. 561, 34 N.W. 15.
The point that the county treasurer did not make his report to the auditor general in time is decided contrary to the view of counsel in Insurance Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial