From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

School Dist. No. 6 v. School Dist. No. 5

Supreme Court of Michigan
Oct 5, 1931
238 N.W. 214 (Mich. 1931)

Summary

authorizing suit to recover taxes paid to wrong school district because "[t]hrough breach of the law, plaintiff and its taxpayers have been deprived of their just due, and defendant has money which in equity and good conscience belongs to plaintiff"

Summary of this case from Montana v. Crow Tribe

Opinion

Docket No. 91, Calendar No. 35,695.

Submitted June 4, 1931.

Decided October 5, 1931.

Appeal from Van Buren; Warner (Glenn E.), J. Submitted June 4, 1931. (Docket No. 91, Calendar No. 35,695.) Decided October 5, 1931.

Assumpsit by School District No. 6, Hamilton township, Van Buren county, against School District No. 5, Hamilton township, Van Buren county, to recover school taxes assessed in defendant district which should have been assessed in plaintiff district. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Earl L. Burhans ( David Anderson, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Lewis R. Williams, for defendant.


Plaintiff and defendant districts are wholly within the same township. A newly-elected supervisor, conceiving himself invested with broad equitable jurisdiction and in order to render more equal the valuations of school districts within the township, assessed for school taxes in defendant district certain bank stock which was properly assessable in plaintiff district. The tax was voluntarily paid and remitted by the township treasurer to defendant district. Plaintiff sued in assumpsit to recover the tax from defendant and had judgment of $166.80.

Because the tax was voluntarily paid, questions of the validity of the assessment and the right the taxpayer had to attack it have no bearing on the issue. The money is a public fund, legally unassailable by the taxpayer, belonging to one district or the other. Had the law been observed, plaintiff would have collected the tax. Through breach of the law, plaintiff and its taxpayers have been deprived of their just due, and defendant has money which in equity and good conscience belongs to plaintiff. Plaintiff has no remedy except to recover from defendant. The authorities sustain the right of recovery. City of Eugene v. Lane County, 50 Ore. 468 ( 93 P. 255); Putnam County v. Smith County, 129 Tenn. 394 ( 164 S.W. 1147); Humboldt County v. Lander County, 24 Nev. 461 ( 56 P. 228); City of Norfolk v. Norfolk County, 120 Va. 356 ( 91 S.E. 820); Town of Balkan v. Village of Buhl, 158 Minn. 271 ( 197 N.W. 266, 35 A.L.R. 470). In the latter case the court said:

"We hold, therefore, that plaintiff has a clear right to the money in question. It is clearly money which in equity and good conscience belongs to plaintiff and not to defendant. Its retention would enable defendant wrongfully to enrich itself at the expense of plaintiff — to lower the tax burden of its inhabitants at the expense of those of Balkan. Surely, courts cannot blind themselves to the obvious equities of such a situation, and deny a right so clear as that of plaintiff in favor of a party so much in the wrong as defendant."

In People ex rel. Village of Decatur, v. Township Board of Decatur, 33 Mich. 335, a township assessed and collected a liquor tax properly assessable by a village. The court held the township accountable to the village.

Had the property been assessed in plaintiff district, the tax would have been $122.76 instead of $166.80. To permit defendant to retain part of the money would allow it to benefit by a wrong perpetrated for its advantage. The taxpayer paid it to discharge a tax. Being public money, the whole belongs to the municipality which had the legal right to levy the tax.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

BUTZEL, C.J., and WIEST, CLARK, McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, and NORTH, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

School Dist. No. 6 v. School Dist. No. 5

Supreme Court of Michigan
Oct 5, 1931
238 N.W. 214 (Mich. 1931)

authorizing suit to recover taxes paid to wrong school district because "[t]hrough breach of the law, plaintiff and its taxpayers have been deprived of their just due, and defendant has money which in equity and good conscience belongs to plaintiff"

Summary of this case from Montana v. Crow Tribe
Case details for

School Dist. No. 6 v. School Dist. No. 5

Case Details

Full title:SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Oct 5, 1931

Citations

238 N.W. 214 (Mich. 1931)
238 N.W. 214

Citing Cases

Terrebonne Parish School Board v. St. Mary Parish School Board

Two members of the court dissented from the opinion on the ground the error in the assessment rolls should…

Pleasant View Reorg. v. Springfield Reorg

" Other cases cited by plaintiff as supporting its position are: Independent School District of Town of Kelly…