Legal Opinion

Mead v. City of Lansing

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 13, 1885PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Ingham. (G-ridley, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the Court

Cooley, O. J.

Assumpsit is brought in this ease to recover back taxes paid under protest. The facts developed on the trial are the following:

Prior to September 22,1879, plaintiff was owner of lot 8, block 246, in the city of Lansing, which fronted 473 feet on Shiawassee street, and had on one end a brick grist-mill occupying 86 feet front. This mill, on the day named, plaintiff conveyed to his son Fred. Mead. When Mr. Moore, the city assessor, was making the assessment for the ensuing year, he called on plaintiff and inquired if his property to be assessed was the same as the last year, and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Louden v. SaginawMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  2. City of Detroit v. Michigan Paving Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Northrup v. City of JacksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Lay v. City of AdrianMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. National Bank of Boaz v. Marshall CountySupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  4. Woods v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Mason v. City of MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1897

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

Powered by the Exa API