Ryerson v. City of Muskegon
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Greilick v. City of Traverse CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1925