Summary
In Schaefer v. Woodmere Cemetery Association, 256 Mich. 332, the city treasurer of Fordson sued the cemetery association in an action at law to recover general city taxes and also a special assessment for street paving.
Summary of this case from Forest Hill Cemetery Co. v. City of Ann ArborOpinion
Docket No. 153, Calendar No. 35,838.
Submitted October 20, 1931.
Decided December 8, 1931. Rehearing denied March 3, 1932.
Appeal from Wayne; Merriam (DeWitt H.), J. Submitted October 20, 1931. (Docket No. 153, Calendar No. 35,838.) Decided December 8, 1931. Rehearing denied March 3, 1932.
Assumpsit by Edwin A. Schaefer, treasurer of the city of Fordson, against Woodmere Cemetery Association, a Michigan corporation, for taxes and special assessments. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
James E. Greene, Corporation Counsel, and Austin Newman, Special Counsel, for plaintiff.
Trowbridge, Lewis Watkins ( Edwin C. Lewis and Milton F. Mallender, of counsel), for defendant.
Plaintiff sued defendant in the circuit court on the common counts in assumpsit to recover from it general city taxes for the years 1926 and 1927 and park 1 and 2 of a special assessment levied against the property for paving Riverside drive, together with interest. Defendant pleaded the general issue and gave notice the property of defendant was exempt from taxation. There was judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We are met by the question of the right of plaintiff to maintain this suit.
"The only case provided for by statute wherein suit may be brought for unpaid taxes by the township is where taxes on personalty have been returned unpaid for want of property on which to levy. 1 Comp. Laws 1871, § 1014. In such case the treasurer may sue in the name of the township. Taxes on real estate may be collected by distress on goods and chattels (1 Comp. Laws 1871, § 1003), but if not so collected the tax is returned unpaid and the land sold to make it." Staley v. Township of Columbus, 36 Mich. 38.
See 1 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 3431, 3438.
On effect of mistake of fact by defendant on right to specific performance of a contract induced thereby, see annotation in 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 81.
This is still the rule. It follows the suit in question will not lie. This question was raised on the argument and it goes to the jurisdiction of the court. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
BUTZEL, C.J., and WIEST, CLARK, McDONALD, SHARPE, NORTH, and FEAD, JJ., concurred.