The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1890-10-17

THE NEW HAVEN CASE.
SUPREME COURT DECISION.

SUPREME COUNT DECISION.
These tax cases went TO the supreme court
In the form of the county treasurer, relator,
VS.. the supervisor, respondent. In the New
Haven township case there was $3,5S8.S4
| apportioned that township i'm 1870 and of
that amount state, county and ditch taxes
and cash to the amount of SOL. .5s and lands
TO the amount of SO, ,492. 43 were returned,
descriptions of land being included for drain
tax. In 1880 the circuit court set tie taxes
aside on these descriptions. The drains for
which these lands were assessed being laid
by county drain commissioner. In 1880
the tax on these lands was charged back to
the county by the Auditor General on ac-
count of the circuit court decision noted
above. No re-assessment was made against
these lands and no call was made against the.
township TO pay the amount due until IN
1889, when the board Of Supervisors ordered
the county treasurer to charge these taxes
against the township and commanded the
Supervisor to spread the same, with COM
pound interest from 1856, then amounting to
$l,226.47. The Supervisor refused to spread
this tax, claiming that the drains were laid
10y county official. hence the township was
not responsible The supreme court holds
that the township was responsible only fOl1
the collection. The township was limo way
nor for, the fact that they were decreed void
for irregularity. The county drain commits
sioner was under control of the board of Su-
peryiSors, which body had power to order a
re-assessment or make any order in relation
to the drain mot inconsistent with the pNS-
lie interests or of the rights of Individuals
If the county has lost anything It must be
recovered by proper proceedings under tie
drain law for o re-assessmcnt upon the lands
benefited if possible, or the body Of the
county must pay it,
HAZLErON TOWNSHIP. MUST PAY.
lii 1871 and 1872 there was returned from
Hazleton township certain lands for uncol-
lected township ditch taxes amounting to
ro3l.2I these lands were returned to the
Auditor General and credited t0 the county.
but when the taxes We're declared void by
the circuit court they were charged back TO
the county by the Auditor General. The
taxes then amounted to $500, 49, The board
OF Supervisors in 1879 chafged back the
taxes to the township Of Iazlet0n. a sec
ond item charged against HazletOn tip. was
that piece of state land in 1880
had been assessed and returned this amount
ed to Si01. .4G in 1857 when charged back by
the Auditor General. BY the settlements
with the county treasurer in lS7i--lS72 the
county paid in cash the amount of taxes lev
led upon these delinquent lands. This sum
Ss27. IS il is claimed by the county was paid
to the township treasurer by the county
treasurer, and the township having had it il
bound in Justice to refund il. These drain
taxes were assessed by township and net by
county authority, but by township highway
commissioners. The township being re-
sponsible for school and highway taxes
charged back by the State it is also held in
this tax. In the second item the township
also has to pay, being primarily in error in
assessing. This must be refunded to tie
county by spreading the tax on the whole
township. Justice Morse delivered both OF
the opinions
In the case of New Haven the cost of tie
suit is to be paid by the county, and in The
Hazeton case the costs are assessed to the
township.