City of Kalamazoo v. Francoise
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kalamazoo; Ruck, J. Assumpsit by the city of Kalamazoo against Cornelius Francoise to recover the amount of a paving tax. From a judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The circuit judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff for -the amount of a paving tax assessed against the defendant on the basis of his lot frontage upon the street paved. The defendant attacks the judgment upon the ground that the resolution of the council did not define a legal taxing district, in that it was designated by its frontage, and that it is inequitable to assess an expensive pavement on a small portion of the city, while most streets are not paved. The charter provides:
‘ ‘ When any special assessment is to be made pro rata upon the lots and premises for any improvement,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Lee Wilson & Co. v. William R. Compton Bond & Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Cass Farm Co. v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Palmer v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Auditor General v. WellmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1910