42 Mich. 24 | Mich. | 1879
The final controversy between these parties is upon the validity of a conveyance made by the Auditor G-eneral, and transferring the right acquired by the State, if any, through sales for the taxes against the land for the years 1869 and 1870. The defendants in error held the original title, and Hunt, who was defendant below, holds the tax title derived from the State. The cause comes before us on a finding by the circuit judge', who reached the conclusion that the tax-title was invalid, and so decided. The question is whether the facts reported warrant this determination.
If one of the two- sales was valid according to the finding, it vested a transferable title on which the grantee could stand, and in case the other was not valid, its inclusion in the State deed could not impeach the grant as to the other. Hence the title under the State deed must be deemed sufficient, unless it appears upon the facts that both sales are impeached.
In this state of the case the plaintiff in error, who relies on the tax-title, contends that as there is nothing found to the contrary, it is a presumption of law that these .taxes were duly authorized and were regular; and on the other hand, the defendants in error, who dispute this title, assume the position that as there is no finding of any proceeding for the raising of those taxes, the conclusion must be that they were placed on the roll without any authority whatever. We think the position taken by the plaintiff in error is upon this record the true one. •
That these taxes might have been lawfully authorized must be admitted. The circumstances do not show that there was any lack of occasion or lawful impediment. The statute not only enacts that the Auditor General’s deed shall be prima facie evidence of the regularity of all the proceedings (Comp. L., §§ 1057, 1091; Blackwood v. Van Vleit, 30 Mich., 118), but in section 1129 it provides further that “all taxes assessed upon any property in this State shall be presumed to be legally assessed until the contrary is affirmatively shown.”
But there is a further ground of complaint against it. It is found that there was no certificate by the county clerk to the return, or statement made by the township treasurer to the county treasurer for either year, and no certificate by the county, treasurer to the township treasurer’s return for 1870. These omissions are claimed to invalidate the sales of both years.
There is no provision for the clerk to certify to the township treasurer’s returns to the county treasurer^ The clerk’s duty to certify applies to proceedings where the time for collecting is extended (Comp. L., § 1005), and to- the accuracy of the county treasurer’s transcript to be sent to the Auditor General (§ 1033). Supervisors of Houghton v. Rees, 34 Mich., 481.
This disposes of the objection so far as it relates to the sale for 1869. What is left of it only concerns the sale for 1870, and the point is whether the omission of
We think the court erred in finding against the tax-title on the facts reported, and that the judgment should be reversed and one entered here -for the plaintiff in error, with costs of both courts, and the case be remanded for such other proceedings as may be proper.