Legal Opinion

Canfield Salt & Lumber Co. v. Township of Manistee

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1894PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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.

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, C. J.

The property of plaintiff wafe seized to satisfy a tax assessed against John Canfield.1 Plaintiff then paid under protest, and brings assumpsit against the township to recover back the money so paid.

The statute (Act No. 200, Laws of. 1891, § 42) provides that—

“ Any person * * * may pay any tax, whether levied on personal or real property, under protest, to the township treasurer, specifying at the time, in writing signed by him, the grounds of such protest. * * * The person paying under such protest may * * * sue the township for the amount paid, and recover if the tax is shown to be illegal…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Comm'rs of Wabaunsee Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
  2. City of Detroit v. MartinMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Louden v. SaginawMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  4. De Graff v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
  5. Atwell v. ZeluffMichigan Supreme Court · 1872

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Marion CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1907

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

Powered by the Exa API