Legal Opinion

McFarlan v. Township of Cedar Creek

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1892PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Wexford. (Aldrich, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, C. J.

This is an action to recover taxes claimed to have been illegally assessed and paid under threat of levy and protest. The trial court found, among other things, as follows:

“1. That prior to the 1st day of April, 1889, the commissioner of highways in said township had drawn a large number of highway orders, payable out of the highway funds belonging to the different highway districts of said township numbered in said orders; that said orders had been drawn from time to time to pay for work and labor performed on the roads of said several districts, or for plank or material employed in building…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Manistee Lumber Co. v. Township of SpringfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. City of Berkley v. Township of Royal OakMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Canfield Salt & Lumber Co. v. Township of ManisteeMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API