Curtis v. Township of Richland
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kalamazoo. (Mills, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant^brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, C. J.
The plaintiff brings suit to recover back taxes paid under protest in the township of Richland, in *479which lie resides. The taxes were laid upon an assessment of $25,000, upon dioses in action to the value of near $35,000, which at the time were in the hands of agents at Petoskey, and, as he claims, assessed for taxation there. The assessment at Petoskey was but $5000, and that and-the Pichland assessment, when combined, were not excessive. But plaintiff claims that under the statute there was no right to tax him at all for these securities in Bichland while they were held by his agents in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People, Ex Rel. Jefferson v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Williams v. City of SaginawMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Moore v. MooreMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Putman v. Township of Fife LakeMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Boardman v. . B'd of Sup'rs of Tompkins Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1881
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Village of Howell v. GordonMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Cliff v. Seligman & LatzCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Hills v. City of MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1909