Salisbury v. City of Detroit

241 N.W. 888, 258 Mich. 235, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1246

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: April 4, 1932
• Docket: Calendar 36,277
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fead, J.

This is a bill in chancery by- a large number of separate owners of land to recover special paving assessments, paid by them individually, on an assessment held void in Miller v. City of Detroit, 244 Mich. 38. Among others, defendants, pleaded the defenses of the statute of limitations and ade quate remedy at law. The court entered an order transferring the case to the law side of the court for trial.

The remedy to recover illegal taxes paid is in assumpsit for money had and received. Blanchard v. City of Detroit, 253 Mich. 491, does not change the remedy. The bill there alleged a cause for injunctive relief, and, under familiar rule, the court disposed of the whole controversy. The existence of a number of independent actions at law does not constitute the multiplicity of suits which confers equitable jurisdiction. Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406 (20 Am. Rep. 654).

Order affirmed, with costs.

. Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Wibst, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred. McDonald, J., did not sit.