Legal Opinion

Matrau v. Tompkins

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1894PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Berrien. (O’Hara, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

Plaintiff is the owner of 80 acres of land in the township of Pipestone, Berrien county. Prior to 1890, a county drain known as the Pipestone drain had been established and constructed at large expense, the amount of which had been ascertained, and plaintiff assessed for benefits to his lands the sum of $252, which was to be paid in two installments, to be assessed one-half in each year of 1890 and 1891. The plaintiff paid the installment of $126 in 1890. In 1891, by an error, his land was assessed only $13.50, which he p§id. In 1892 the'land was assessed for the balance of $112.50, and his…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gratwick, Smith & Fryer Lumber Co. v. Village of OscodaMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Minor Lumber Co. v. City of AlpenaMichigan Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Brady v. HaywardMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Ranney Refrigerator Co. v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  3. 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