Schaefer v. Woodmere Cemetery Assn.

Michigan Supreme Court

Schaefer v. Woodmere Cemetery Assn.

239 N.W. 300, 256 Mich. 332, 1931 Mich. LEXIS 1084

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 8, 1931

DocketDocket No. 153, Calendar No. 35,838.

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 239 N.W. 300 (Schaefer v. Woodmere Cemetery Assn.) 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

Schaefer v. Woodmere Cemetery Assn., 239 N.W. 300, 256 Mich. 332, 1931 Mich. LEXIS 1084 (Mich. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant in the circuit court on the common counts in assumpsit to recover from it general city taxes for the years 1926 and 1927 and parts 1 and 2 of a special assessment levied against the property for paving Riverside drive, together with interest. Defendant pleaded the general issue and gave notice the property of defendant was exempt from .taxation. There was judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We *333 are met by tbe question of the right of plaintiff to maintain this suit.

“The only case provided for by statute wherein suit may be brought for unpaid taxes by the township is where taxes on personalty have been returned unpaid for want of property on which to levy. 1 Comp. Laws 1871, § 1014. In such case thé treasurer may sue in the name of the township. Taxes on real estate may be collected by distress on goods and chattels (1 Comp. Laws 1871, § 1003), but if not so collected the tax is returned unpaid and the land sold to make it.” Staley v. Township of Columbus, 36 Mich. 38. 1

This is still the rule. It follows the suit in question will not lie. This question was raised on the argument and it goes to the jurisdiction of the court. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

1

See 1 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 3431, 3438.

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

Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant in the circuit court on the common counts in assumpsit to recover from it general city taxes for the years 1926 and 1927 and parts 1 and 2 of a special assessment levied against the property for paving Riverside drive, together with interest. Defendant pleaded the general issue and gave notice the property of defendant was exempt from .taxation. There was judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We *333 are met by tbe question of the right of plaintiff to maintain this suit.

“The only case provided for by statute wherein suit may be brought for unpaid taxes by the township is where taxes on personalty have been returned unpaid for want of property on which to levy. 1 Comp. Laws 1871, § 1014. In such case thé treasurer may sue in the name of the township. Taxes on real estate may be collected by distress on goods and chattels (1 Comp. Laws 1871, § 1003), but if not so collected the tax is returned unpaid and the land sold to make it.” Staley v. Township of Columbus, 36 Mich. 38. 1

This is still the rule. It follows the suit in question will not lie. This question was raised on the argument and it goes to the jurisdiction of the court. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

1

See 1 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 3431, 3438.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 N.W. 300, 256 Mich. 332, 1931 Mich. LEXIS 1084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaefer-v-woodmere-cemetery-assn-mich-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack