Fletcher v. Township of Alcona
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Alcona. (Tuttle, J.) Assumpsit for taxes paid under protest. Defendant brings error. Tbe facts are fully stated in tbe opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
Tbe plaintiffs are copartners, carrying on tbe lumbering and saw-milling business at Alpena, under tbe firm name of Fletcher, Pack & Co. Prior to November 7, 1885, they bad owned for a number of years lands situate in townships 28 N., of range 6 E., and 28 N., of range 7 E., in tbe county of Alcona, Mich., and township 29 N., of range 2 E., Montmorency county, Mich. On that date, in pursuance of previous negotiations, they *19deeded the lands in said townships to the firm of Snow & Huber, of Marion county^ Iowa. .
The lands lying in Alcona county comprised 28 distinct government 40’s, containing…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People Ex Rel. New York Elevated Railroad v. Commissioners of Taxes & AssessmentsNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
3Cited by13 opinions
- Kerschensteiner v. Northern Michigan Land Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
- Nehalem Timber Co. v. Columbia CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- General v. Pioneer Iron Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1900
- State v. Jemez Land Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1924
- In Re Petition of Auditor GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.