Cox v. Welcher

36 N.W. 69, 68 Mich. 263, 1888 Mich. LEXIS 916
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 19, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 36 N.W. 69 (Cox v. Welcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cox v. Welcher, 36 N.W. 69, 68 Mich. 263, 1888 Mich. LEXIS 916 (Mich. 1888).

Opinion

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover back an illegal drain tax paid under protest to defendant, who was about to levy on his property. Defendant himself drew up the pro. test for plaintiff to sign, which was general, and not specific, as to reasons of illegality. The court below held the protest should have been specific, and directed judgment for defendant.

Our'statutes provide that in some cases a person may pay taxes in advance of the time they can be enforced,' and do [264]*264so under protest. This protest, which is made under an exceptional statute, is required to be specific. But such a payment under no stress of process is a voluntary payment, and could not be recovered back without statutory permission. Where payments are involuntary, and made under legal duress, there has never been any rule requiring a specific protest. The attempt to compel payment where there is no legal burden is regarded as a legal injury, and payment made to avoid the seizure and sale of property to pay the wrongful claim can be recovered' back as an extorted sum for which there was no consideration. The principle is so familiar, under our own decisions, as to need no citation of cases. The court below did not draw the proper line between voluntary and involuntary payment. Plaintiff should have been allowed to recover.

Judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Oakley Country Club v. Long
89 N.E.2d 260 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Great Northern Railway Co. v. State
93 P.2d 694 (Washington Supreme Court, 1939)
Hudson Motor Car Co. v. City of Detroit
275 N.W. 770 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1937)
Blanchard v. City of Detroit
235 N.W. 230 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1931)
Union Bag & Paper Corp. v. State
295 P. 748 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
Kerschensteiner v. Northern Michigan Land Co.
221 N.W. 322 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1928)
Byram v. Thurston County
252 P. 943 (Washington Supreme Court, 1926)
American District Telegraph Co. v. City of New York
213 A.D. 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
Board of Commissioners v. Adler
133 N.E. 602 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1922)
Newberry v. City of Detroit
150 N.W. 838 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Finnell v. Armoura
117 P. 49 (Utah Supreme Court, 1911)
Brown v. Warner
123 N.W. 1113 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1909)
Morris v. City of New Haven
63 A. 123 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1906)
Pere Marquette Railroad v. City of Ludington
95 N.W. 417 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1903)
Canfield Salt & Lumber Co. v. Township of Manistee
59 N.W. 164 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 N.W. 69, 68 Mich. 263, 1888 Mich. LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-welcher-mich-1888.