Copper Range Co. v. Adams Township
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Houghton; O’Brien (Patrick H.), J. Assumpsit by the Copper Range Company against the township of Adams for taxes paid under protest. The State board of assessors, the board of State tax commissioners, the St. Mary’s Mineral Land Company, and the South Range Mining Company intervened as parties defendant. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
This is a suit brought to recover a portion of taxes of 1915, paid under protest by the Baltic Mining Company. Before the trial the Copper Range Company became the owner of all of the assets of the Baltic Mining Company, and the demands in said suit were assigned to the Copper Range Company which was substituted as plaintiff. The St. Mary’s Mineral Land Company and the South Range Mining Company intervened as defendants, as did the board of State tax commissioners and the State board of assessors. The case was tried before the court. From a judgment in favor of the defendant the case is…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. BabcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Wall v. TrumbullMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Merrill v. HumphreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Newport Mining Co. v. City of IronwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Walsh v. KingMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Harry B. Helmsley v. City of Detroit, Michigan, a Municipal Corporation of the State of MichiganCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1963
- Twenty-Two Charlotte, Inc. v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
- Kingsford Chemical Co. v. City of KingsfordMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
- S. S. Kresge Co. v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
- Sloman-Polk Co. v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.