TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Herrick v. City of Big Rapids

Addie Lee Herrick v. The City of Big Rapids

Herrick v. City of Big Rapids, 19 N.W. 182 (Mich. 1884)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 30, 1884
Judges
Campbell, Other
Citations
19 N.W. 18253 Mich. 554
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Assessment of legacies. 1. A legatee cannot, in Michigan, be assessed for a legacy not yet due and still in the hands of executors; all undistributed estate must be assessed to the executor. Act 9 of 1889, sec. 11. 9. When the assessment of a particular class of property is clearly identified and separable, the question of the liability of such property to the assessment can be raised in an action to recover back the amount of the tax after paying it under protest.
Summary
Error to Mecosta. (Fuller, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Campbell

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

Campbell, J.

The only question which is presented by the record in this case is. whether it is competent to assess a legatee for a legacy not yet due, and still in the hands of executors. As this was the only thing assessed, we think there is no legal objection to reaching the rights of the parties as-asserted by the payment under protest. It has been decided in several cases that the liability to taxation of certain classes of property, when clearly identified and separable, is examinable. Under our statutes the property of a testate estate is required to be assessed at the last residence of the decedent, to-the executors. The decedent resided in the same ward where .this assessment was made, and his estate was assessed there. The statute is express that the whole undistributed estate shall be assessed to the executors. Section 11. [1 How. Stat. p. 1267.] Under such a distinct and positive provision a legatee could not be required to assume that any part of the estate would be assessed to her, when she could not realize it, or obtain control over it.

We think the conclusions of the court below were correct,, and that the judgment should be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1885–1886: 11887–1888: 11893–1894: 11947–1948: 118852026peak 1885 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Detroit v. Stafford30 N.W.2d 410 (Mich. 1948)
  2. Avery v. Dewitt40 N.W. 39 (Mich. 1888)
  3. Barstow v. City of Big Rapids22 N.W. 103 (Mich. 1885)
  4. Canfield Salt & Lumber Co. v. Township of Manistee59 N.W. 164 (Mich. 1894) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. City of Detroit v. Stafford30 N.W.2d 410 (Mich. 1948)
  2. Canfield Salt & Lumber Co. v. Township of Manistee59 N.W. 164 (Mich. 1894) · Dissent
  3. Avery v. Dewitt40 N.W. 39 (Mich. 1888)
  4. Barstow v. City of Big Rapids22 N.W. 103 (Mich. 1885)

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