Hills v. City of Muskegon

Michigan Supreme Court

Hills v. City of Muskegon

123 N.W. 21, 158 Mich. 551, 1909 Mich. LEXIS 750

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 5, 1909

DocketDocket No. 121

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 N.W. 21 (Hills v. City of Muskegon) 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

Hills v. City of Muskegon, 123 N.W. 21, 158 Mich. 551, 1909 Mich. LEXIS 750 (Mich. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Ostkandek, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover a tax upon personal property assessed to her, paid under protest. She resides in the city of Muskegon. The property in question is an undivided interest in personal property bequeathed to plaintiff and her children by her deceased husband. It appears to be agreed by counsel that the legal title to the property, as distinguished from mere possession and control thereof, is in the Michigan Trust Company, of Grand Rapids, Mich., as trustee for the plaintiff and as guardian for her children. Under such circumstances, it is the general rule, and has been indirectly, at least, established as the rule in this State, that the holder of the legal title is, for purposes of taxation, the owner. 1 Perry on Trusts (4th Ed.), § 331; l.Lewin on [552]*552Trusts, p. 236; Curtis v. Township of Richland, 56 Mich. 478 (23 N. W. 175); City of Detroit v. Lewis, 109 Mich. 155, 162 (66 N. W. 958, 32 L. R. A. 439); Baars v. City of Grand Rapids, 129 Mich. 572, 576 (89 N. W. 328).

The court below correctly held that the property was taxable to the trust company under the provisions of section 13 (1 Comp. Laws, § 3836) as owner, and that subdivision 6, § 14 (1 Comp. Laws, § 3837), had no application.

The judgment is affirmed.

Grant, Montgomery, Moore, and McAlvay, JJ.„ concurred.

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

Ostkandek, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover a tax upon personal property assessed to her, paid under protest. She resides in the city of Muskegon. The property in question is an undivided interest in personal property bequeathed to plaintiff and her children by her deceased husband. It appears to be agreed by counsel that the legal title to the property, as distinguished from mere possession and control thereof, is in the Michigan Trust Company, of Grand Rapids, Mich., as trustee for the plaintiff and as guardian for her children. Under such circumstances, it is the general rule, and has been indirectly, at least, established as the rule in this State, that the holder of the legal title is, for purposes of taxation, the owner. 1 Perry on Trusts (4th Ed.), § 331; l.Lewin on [552]*552Trusts, p. 236; Curtis v. Township of Richland, 56 Mich. 478 (23 N. W. 175); City of Detroit v. Lewis, 109 Mich. 155, 162 (66 N. W. 958, 32 L. R. A. 439); Baars v. City of Grand Rapids, 129 Mich. 572, 576 (89 N. W. 328).

The court below correctly held that the property was taxable to the trust company under the provisions of section 13 (1 Comp. Laws, § 3836) as owner, and that subdivision 6, § 14 (1 Comp. Laws, § 3837), had no application.

The judgment is affirmed.

Grant, Montgomery, Moore, and McAlvay, JJ.„ concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.W. 21, 158 Mich. 551, 1909 Mich. LEXIS 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hills-v-city-of-muskegon-mich-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack