Cox v. Welcher
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Cass. (Smith, J.) Assumpsit for drain tax paid under protest. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
Plaintiff sued to recover back an illegal drain tax paid under protest to defendant, who was about to levy on his property. Defendant himself drew up the pro. test for plaintiff to sign, which was general, and not specific, as to reasons of illegality. The court below held the protest should have been specific, and directed judgment for defendant.
Our'statutes provide that in some cases a person may pay taxes in advance of the time they can be enforced,' and do *264so under protest. This protest, which is made under an exceptional statute, is required to be specific. But such a payment under no…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Hudson Motor Car Co. v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
- Byram v. Thurston CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1926
- Board of Commissioners v. AdlerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1922
- Great Northern Railway Co. v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1939
- Kerschensteiner v. Northern Michigan Land Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.