Canfield Salt & Lumber Co. v. Township of Manistee
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Manistee. (Judkins, J.) Submitted on briefs November 24, .1893. Decided May 22, 1894. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1DissentMontgomery, J.
I am not able to distinguish this case from Lyon v. Tax Receiver, 52 Mich. 271, and for this reason dissent from the views expressed by the Chief Justice. -
RECOVERY OR TAXES PAID UNDER THE PRESSURE OE AN ACTUAD OR THREATENED LEVY, OR UNDER STATUTORY PROTEST.
The growing importance of the questions suggested in the above heading has seemed to warrant the preparation and publication, in connection with the foregoing opinion, of a note summarizing the legislation and collating the cases bearing upon the subject.
Summary of Legislation.
1. Act No. 6, Laws of 1873 (How. Stat. § 1206), taking effect…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- City of Detroit v. MartinMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- First National Bank v. WatkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
- Louden v. SaginawMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Peninsula Iron & Lumber Co. v. Township of Crystal FallsMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Atwell v. ZeluffMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.