Moss v. Cummings
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Sanilac. Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
This in its purpose is a praiseworthy suit, f or it is brought to compel obedience by public officers to their duty under the law. The plaintiffs in the year 1878 were owners as partners of taxable property in the township of Lexington in the county of Sanilac, and the supervisor for the year listed it for taxation, and it was taxed. The defendant was township treasurer, and plaintiffs have paid the tax to him under the compulsion of his process, and now seek to-recover it back as an illegal exaction. The ground of illegality is, that the supervisor, instead of assessing the property of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Merrill v. HumphreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Glasgow v. RowseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Erskine v. HohnbachSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Bird v. PerkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Hubbard v. GarfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Thompson v. Auditor GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Galusha v. WendtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- White v. BeasleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1996
- Longstreet v. County of MecostaMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
- State ex rel. Mills v. American Surety Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1914
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.