Marquette County v. Dillon

Michigan Supreme Court

Marquette County v. Dillon

1 McGrath 1397, 49 McGrath 244

DecidedOctober 18, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 1397 (Marquette County v. Dillon) 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

Marquette County v. Dillon, 1 McGrath 1397, 49 McGrath 244 (Mich. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

To compel respondent to pay over the moneys collected by him for county taxes for the year 1881, the respondent refusing, on the ground that the county treasurer collected for the previous year an equal or larger sum for taxes collected upon the liquor traffic in the city of Ishpeming, which it was his duty to pay into the city treasury, but which he wrongfully withheld.

Granted October 18, 1882.

Held, that under Act 228 of 1875, in collecting and accounting for the tax, the treasurer is the agent of the municipality and not of the county, and that his failure to act does not warrant the municipality in withholding an equivalent amount from the taxes. Held also, that the county does not guarantee the integrity of its officers, and is not bound to answer for their conduct, as where the county treasurer embezzles funds, which, as the agent of the townships and cities of the county, he is required to place to their credit.

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

To compel respondent to pay over the moneys collected by him for county taxes for the year 1881, the respondent refusing, on the ground that the county treasurer collected for the previous year an equal or larger sum for taxes collected upon the liquor traffic in the city of Ishpeming, which it was his duty to pay into the city treasury, but which he wrongfully withheld.

Granted October 18, 1882.

Held, that under Act 228 of 1875, in collecting and accounting for the tax, the treasurer is the agent of the municipality and not of the county, and that his failure to act does not warrant the municipality in withholding an equivalent amount from the taxes. Held also, that the county does not guarantee the integrity of its officers, and is not bound to answer for their conduct, as where the county treasurer embezzles funds, which, as the agent of the townships and cities of the county, he is required to place to their credit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 1397, 49 McGrath 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marquette-county-v-dillon-mich-1882.