Harts v. City of Mackinac Island
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Mackinac; Shepherd, J. Assumpsit by Daisy H. Harts, and Daisy H. Harts and Edwin B. Harts, as administrators of the estate of E. S. Hanson, deceased, against the city of Mackinac Island, to recover taxes paid under protest. Erom a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error. Plaintiffs paid their taxes under protest, and brought this suit to recover the amount so paid. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and a finding of facts made.
Read the full summary
Error to Mackinac; Shepherd, J. Assumpsit by Daisy H. Harts, and Daisy H. Harts and Edwin B. Harts, as administrators of the estate of E. S. Hanson, deceased, against the city of Mackinac Island, to recover taxes paid under protest. Erom a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error. Plaintiffs paid their taxes under protest, and brought this suit to recover the amount so paid. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and a finding of facts made. The findings material to the understanding of the questions raised are these: The property assessed was described as the “ W. f part…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). 1. The first objection to the validity of the tax is that the description of the land is void for indefiniteness. Counsel cite and rely in support of this contention upon Hubbard v. Winsor, 15 Mich. 146; Petit v. Railroad Co., 114 Mich. 362 (72 N. W. 238). In the former case the description was, “N. E. U” etc., “less lots sold.” In the latter case it was, “W. fractional -J-,” etc., “excepting and reserving the lands heretofore sold to E. Fitzgerald, Smith, Wright, Read, and others, and about one and a half acres in the northwest corner, and one and a half acres…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hubbard v. WinsorMichigan Supreme Court · 1866
- Aplin v. RobertsMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Petit v. Flint & Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1904