TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Auditor General v. Prescott

The Auditor General v. Charles H. Prescott

Auditor Gen. v. Prescott, 53 N.W. 1058 (Mich. 1892)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 22, 1892
Judges
Montgomery, Other
Citations
53 N.W. 105894 Mich. 1901892 Mich. LEXIS 1099
Disposition
Decree reversed.
Headnotes
Taxes — Intentional omission of property from roll. .The intentional omission from the tax roll of a township of $800,-000 worth of personal property taxable therein, and the assessment of the real estate of the township at one-fourth of its cash value, will invalidate the State and county taxes levied upon the lands of a tax-payer in other townships in the same county, which were assessed at their cash value; citing Walsh v. King, 74 Mich. 350; Solomon v. Township of Oscoda, 77 Id. 365; Auditor General v. Jenkinson, 90 Id. 523.
Summary
Appeal from Iosco. (Simpson, J.) ■ Petition for the sale of lands delinquent for taxes under Act No. 195, Laws of 1889. Defendants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Montgomery

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

Montgomery, J.

This is an appeal from a decree made against the lands of the defendants, on the petition of the Auditor General for a sale of lands in Iosco county, for taxes levied in the year 1889 on lands owned by the defendants in that county.

The lands of the defendants are situated in the town•ships of Sherman, Alabaster, Eeno, Grant, Tawas, and Thompson. The evidence in the case shows that there was purposely omitted from the tax roll of the township ■of Oscoda about $800,000 worth of personal property, lumber, logs, and salt, which property was taxable in that township, and also that the real estate of the last-named township was assessed at one-fourth of its cash value. It *191 ■appears by tbe concession of tbe prosecuting attorney, representing the petitioner, that the lands of the defendants were assessed at their full cash value. The objections were to the county and State taxes only, the township taxes not being in controversy.

There was a very plain, clear, and willful violation of the law by the assessing officers, and in a manner affecting prejudicially the interests of the defendants; and there is no sufficient data upon which the equitable amount due' from the defendants for taxes can be ascertained. The •questions involved have been fully considered and decided in the cases of Walsh v. King, 74 Mich. 350 ; Auditor General v. Jenkinson, 90 Id. 523; and Solomon v. Township of Oscoda, 77 Id. 365.

The decree of the court below will be .reversed, and the State and county taxes, amounting to $449.30, and the •collection charges of $1 on each description, amounting to ■$168, will be held not a proper charge against the descriptions of land owned by defendants. The defendants are also entitled to recover their costs of this Court.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1898: 11899: 11900: 21901: 11903: 11910: 11915: 11919: 118982026peak 1900 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Auditor General v. Sage Land & Improvement Co.88 N.W. 468 (Mich. 1901)
  2. Fletcher Paper Co. v. City of Alpena125 N.W. 405 (Mich. 1910)
  3. General v. Pioneer Iron Co.82 N.W. 260 (Mich. 1900)
  4. City of Muskegon v. Boyce82 N.W. 264 (Mich. 1900)
  5. Auditor General v. Hughitt93 N.W. 621 (Mich. 1903)
  6. Story & Clark Piano Co. v. Hilderink155 N.W. 445 (Mich. 1915)

Most recent

  1. Copper Range Co. v. Adams Township175 N.W. 282 (Mich. 1919)
  2. Story & Clark Piano Co. v. Hilderink155 N.W. 445 (Mich. 1915)
  3. Fletcher Paper Co. v. City of Alpena125 N.W. 405 (Mich. 1910)
  4. Auditor General v. Hughitt93 N.W. 621 (Mich. 1903)
  5. Auditor General v. Sage Land & Improvement Co.88 N.W. 468 (Mich. 1901)
  6. General v. Pioneer Iron Co.82 N.W. 260 (Mich. 1900)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Walsh v. King, 41 N.W. 1080 (Mich. 1889) 17

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