Case ID: mich_51/html/0556-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CaMpbell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Homer B. Dunning v. Charles H. Calkins.
    
      Error — Tax wm'rant for drain taxes.
    
    A judgment cannot be reversed, if right, whether the reasons on which it is placed are satisfactory or not; and counsel can rely on all the objections raised below.
    
      A warrant for tlie collection of drain taxes is bad if the taxes are not so spread upon tbe assessment roll as to identify the drain for which each is levied, in order that each fund may be kept separate, and specific drain orders be paid from the proper fund.
    Error to Shiawassee. (Newton, J.)
    Oct. 3.
    Oct. 24
    TboyeR. Defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Hugh McCurdy for appellant.
    A tax collector need not loot behind his process for authority to issue the same; Foster v. Wiley 27 Mich. 244; Savacool v. Boughton 5 Wend. 170; Parker v. WaT/rod 16 Wend. 614; Fulton v. Heaton 1 Barb. 652; Cornell v. Barnes 1 Hill 35.
    
      A. B. McBride for appellee.
   CaMpbell, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant for the wrongful seizure and conversion of personal property. Defendant undertook to justify under a tax warrant upon which plaintiff was charged vpth a drain assessment. When this warrant was presented it was objected to on several plainly expressed grounds, and "the court below ruled it out, on the ground that the statute gave no authority to collect the tax from the personal property. Defendant brought error.

The plaintiff’s counsel in this Court relied on all the objections raised below, as he had a right to do, as the judgment cannot be reversed if the decision was right, whether based on satisfactory reasons or not.

It appears from the roll that instead of placing the taxes on the roll in such a way as to identify the drain for which they were laid, by name or otherwise, so as to have each fund kept separate in the township treasurer’s hands, and so as also to allow payment by drainage orders, as contemplated by sections 15, 21 and 22, the roll required the money for all drains in the township to be paid over in a gross sum to the town treasurer, and, as we must assume from the record, contained none of the substantial elements of a proper charging under the statutes. This being so, it was unimportant whether a regular tax could or could not be collected against personalty,' and we need not consider that question, which comes later in order than the objection .already discussed. The warrant being bad on its face, was no defense.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.