TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mears v. Howarth

Charles Mears v. Henry Howarth

Mears v. Howarth, 34 Mich. 19 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 18, 1876
Judges
Marston, Other
Citations
34 Mich. 191876 Mich. LEXIS 94
Headnotes
Uquity jurisprudence: Taxes: Personal property: Injunction. Equity tvíU not interfere to restrain tbe collection of a tax upon personal property, the remedy at la-w being ample and plain.
Summary
Appeal in Chancery from Oceana Circuit.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Marston

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Marston, J:

Complainant filed his bill to be relieved from the collection of certain alleged illegal taxes, alleging that the supervisor had assessed his lands higher in proportion than other lands of like value in the same township. He also alleged that he was, and had for a long time been a resident of Lincoln, Mason county, and that the treasurer of the township of Golden, Oceana county, had assessed his personal property in that township; that the same was not subject to assessment in the township of Golden, but was subject to and had been assessed in said townsM}} of Lincoln. The bill further alleges that he took the necessary and proper steps to have such assessments corrected, but that the supervisor refused; and he prays that the defendant, who is treasurer of the township of Golden, may be restrained from proceeding to collect such taxes. An answer was put in, and proofs taken. Upon the hearing the court below decreed that the tax assessed upon the personal property was null and void, and perpetually enjoined the collection of the same. From this decree the defendant appealed.

This case comes directly within that of Hagenbuch v. Howard, supra, p. 1. The complainant had a plain, adequate remedy at law, admitting the allegations in his bill to be true, in reference to the assessment of the personal property; and that is the only question in this court, the complainant not having appealed. For these reasons the decree of the court below must be reversed, and a decree entered dismissing the bill, with costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1882–1883: 11884–1885: 11900–1901: 118822026peak 1882 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mack v. Village of Frankfort82 N.W. 209 (Mich. 1900)
  2. Shaw v. Chambers12 N.W. 486 (Mich. 1882)
  3. Frost v. Leatherman1 How. N.P. 131 (Mich. Cir. Ct., 17th Cir. 1884)

Most recent

  1. Mack v. Village of Frankfort82 N.W. 209 (Mich. 1900)
  2. Frost v. Leatherman1 How. N.P. 131 (Mich. Cir. Ct., 17th Cir. 1884)
  3. Shaw v. Chambers12 N.W. 486 (Mich. 1882)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list