Common Council v. Board of Assessors
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus. Relator applied for mafidamus to compel the assessment of mortgages under the tax law of 1891. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1ConcurrenceLong, J.
I fully concur in the views expressed in the -opinion by my Brother Grant, in which it is held that the act signed by the Governor is not the act which passed the Legislature, and is therefore void. Aside from that, conceding that the act signed is the one which passed the Legislature, as held by the majority of the Court, there are many provisions which, in my opinion, ■should be held unconstitutional.
The whole scheme of the act for taxing mortgages is that the owner's interest and the mortgagee's interest ■shall be taxed separately. Section 17 provides that—
“If the said mortgagee shall…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Green v. BiddleSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- McCulloch v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Planters' Bank v. SharpSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Town of South Ottawa v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Post v. SupervisorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.