Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

96 Mich. 624

Scott v. Whelan

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1893

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1893-07-26

<p>Replevin — Taxes.</p> <p>Where, after the conveyance by a father to his son of a portion of an unoccupied piece of land, the entire land is assessed to the father, who holds the record title, as one parcel, he cannot maintain replevin for property seized to satisfy the entire tax, on the refusal of the treasurer to accept a tender of his proportionate share.1</p>

Relies on Hill v. Wright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1893-07-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1911

3 state decisions

10189319001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McGrath, J.

¶1This is replevin for personal property seized by the defendant, a township treasurer, for the payment of taxes.

¶2Unoccupied land, the title to a part of which was held by the son, by virtue of an unrecorded deed recently given by the father, was assessed as one parcel to the father, for a drain tax. After the seizure of the personal property, the father (plaintiff herein) tendered to defendant his proportionate share of the taxes, giving a notice in writing of the description of the parcel' owned by him, and refused to pay the remaining tax upon the parcel owned by his son, and, upon refusal of defendant to accept, demanded the return of the property seized; and, being refused by defendant unless *625he would pay the entire tax, the plaintiff brought replevin» The circuit judge held that, the authorities having jurisdiction to impose an assessment upon the plaintiff, and the same being in part valid, replevin would not lie for the property seized by the treasurer, and gave judgment against, plaintiff for the amount of the tax.

¶3The property was seized for the payment of a tax regular-in form, and lawful on its face. Plaintiff was in no sense a stranger to the tax. Hill v. Wright, 49 Mich. 229.

¶4The judgment is affirmed.

Long, Grant, and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. Hooker, G. J., took no part in the decision.
/96/mich/624 · .json · Public domain