History
  • No items yet
midpage
Salisbury v. City of Detroit
241 N.W. 888
Mich.
1932
Check Treatment
Fead, J.

This is a bill in chancery by- a large number of separate owners of land to recover special paving assessments, paid by them individually, on an assessment held void in Miller v. City of Detroit, 244 Mich. 38. Among others, defendants, pleaded the defenses of the statute of limitations and ade *236 quate remedy at law. The court entered an order transferring the case to the law side of the court for trial.

The remedy to recover illegal taxes paid is in assumpsit for money had and received. Blanchard v. City of Detroit, 253 Mich. 491, does not change the remedy. The bill there alleged a cause for injunctive relief, and, under familiar rule, the court disposed of the whole controversy. The existence of a number of independent actions at law does not constitute the multiplicity of suits which confers equitable jurisdiction. Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406 (20 Am. Rep. 654).

Order affirmed, with costs.

. Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Wibst, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred. McDonald, J., did not sit.

Case Details

Case Name: Salisbury v. City of Detroit
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Apr 4, 1932
Citation: 241 N.W. 888
Docket Number: Calendar 36,277
Court Abbreviation: Mich.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.