Legal Opinion

Daniells v. Township of Watertown

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1886PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Clinton. (Smith, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.

This suit was commenced by filing declaration against the township on the fourteenth day of January, 1885, in the circuit court for Clinton county, to recover of the township $262,74, money received by its treasurer on an illegal sale of the plaintiff’s property for the taxes assessed against him in the year 1879; the illegality being the omission in the certificate of the supervisor, attached to the roll, of the following words: “And not at the price it would sell for at forced or auction sale,” — these words constituting a part of the statutory form.

The plaintiff claims that, for the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Bristol v. Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Clark v. CraneMichigan Supreme Court · 1858

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dever v. CornwellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Phillips v. Township of New BuffaloMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Great Scott Supermarkets, Inc v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Heinszen v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1907

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

Powered by the Exa API