163 Mich. 86 | Mich. | 1910
This case presents the question of the legality of a certain tax for a drain called the “Bay Drain.” The complainant is the owner of the S. W. £ of section 35, in the township of Ogden, Lenawee county, subject to a life estate in her mother, Lydia Klotz. It appears that the mother signed a paper purporting to convey the right of way along the east side of the land in question for said drain, but no attempt was made to obtain from complainant any release or right of way, nor was she named as a party in any of the proceedings. It appears, however, that complainant had knowledge of the proceedings, and consulted with the drain commissioner as to the route of
Upon the hearing, it appeared that the said drain tax was in form levied upon the north 60 acres of said premises, but by an error it was returned to the auditor general as against the whole S. W. £ of said section; that the said auditor general, upon being advised of the facts, canceled the said tax as irregular. It appears by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the complainant assented to the digging of said drain, and that the drain was a benefit to the property. The decree below made no provision relating to the digging or maintaining of said ditch or drain, but found that the defendants were proceeding, without jurisdiction, to tax and sell complainant’s lands for the collection thereof. It adjudged and decreed that the proceedings to levy and collect said tax were irregular and void, and that said tax was not a valid lien against complainant’s interest in said land, and that defendants had no right or authority to attempt to sell said land for said drain tax. By the terms of the decree the county treasurer was enjoined from selling said land for said drain tax, or from taking any proceeding to reassess said drain tax against the right, title, and interest of complainant in and to said land, and from making return of said lands to the auditor general for said tax as an unpaid tax. The decree bears date October 22, 1908. The defendants only appealed from the decree.
It is now represented to us by the attorney general, who files a brief in behalf of the auditor general, that since the making of the decree, and taking the appeal, the board of supervisors of said county has reassessed said
The case will be remanded accordingly.