Legal Opinion

Ryerson v. City of Muskegon

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1885PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Muskegon. (Russell, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. cited as to the place of taxation, Putman v. Fife Lake 45 Mich. 125; MeGoy v. Anderson 47 Mich. 502.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

Plaintiffs sued defendant to recover back taxes paid under protest upon logs assessed in Muskegon, but actually held by plaintiffs in Clare and Newaygo counties. The facts are not disputed, but there is a controversy whether the property in Clare and Newaygo should be held for taxing purposes, as liable to taxation in the city of Muskegon, where plaintiffs have a business office.

The case showed that plaintiffs’ principal business office in Michigan is in the city of Muskegon, in the First ward, where this assessment was made. At that time the firm had in and near Muskegon, or outside of any…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Greilick v. City of Traverse CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API