TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wayne County Savings Bank v. Supervisor of Roscommon

The Wayne County Savings Bank v. The Supervisor of the Township of Roscommon

Wayne Cnty. Sav. Bank v. Supervisor of Roscommon, 97 Mich. 630 (1893)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1893
Citations
97 Mich. 630
Headnotes
Taxes — Municipal bonds — Mandamus. Mandamus will not lie to compel a township to assess a tax to pay the uncollected portion of a former assessment, ordered to be made to pay the amount then due upon its bonds, until after the sale for delinquent taxes of the lands upon which the former assessment was made.
Summary
Mandamus. On November 16, 1892, a mandamus was granted, upon the petition of the relator, requiring the respondent to assess upon the taxable property of the township of Roscommon the amount then due for principal and interest upon certain bonds issued by the township and owned by the relator. The assessment was made, but only a portion of the tax had been collected, when this application was made for a mandamus to compel the respondent to assess upon the roll, for 1893 a sum sufficient to cover the uncollected portion of the former assessment, and the amount which had matured on the bonds since said assessment; the relator stating in its petition that the circuit court for Roscommon county would not again convene until January, 1894, and that therefore relator would be prejudiced should it be remitted to the circuit under Circuit Court Rule No. 107.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam.

Mandamus will be granted as to assessment for bonds which have fallen due since the order heretofore' made, and denied as to amounts required to be assessed by said order until after the sale for delinquent taxes of the lands upon which said assessment was made.

How later courts describe this case

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

1918: 11929: 11932: 11935: 119182026peak 1918 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irr. Dist.248 F. 369 (8th Cir. 1918)
  2. Gates v. Sweitzer179 N.E. 837 (Ill. 1932)
  3. Board of Education v. Board of Education222 N.W. 763 (Mich. 1929)
  4. Miami Conservancy District v. Baden20 Ohio Law. Abs. 16 (1935) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Miami Conservancy District v. Baden20 Ohio Law. Abs. 16 (1935) · Dissent
  2. Gates v. Sweitzer179 N.E. 837 (Ill. 1932)
  3. Board of Education v. Board of Education222 N.W. 763 (Mich. 1929)
  4. Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irr. Dist.248 F. 369 (8th Cir. 1918)

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