The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1898-04-30
ANIMPoRrANr CASE.

Supreme court 40 "a case tlh'h UP llpth
I. Gpgebic county Is ~ coHs dcrlhle
|~~~rt to the people "i this county
from the fact that II s'is at rs-t several
questions upon which tnN@ ~ this
county have been sct asi'lc IL, the pnst.
The ease wnS nppcaled from the
decision of Judge Norman W. linle,
the complainant and appcllc being
reprcrentcd by Attorney G. i. Miller,
prose, uing attorney 81 Guschic
county, and the defendants and
appellants by NJ. J Sherwood and
utheIS
Among the objections fled to the pro.
cceding. instituted ~ the nndltor
general for tlr. sale old iendants' lands
were the following
First-1'he coudty tnN was claimed 10
invalid Tor want 81 proper equalization
~ apportionment Tie committee,
I il United by the buarl Of supervisors
ON equalization, mnle u report to the
board OF supervisors containing
schcduls oi assessed and cqualizcd
values, etc. but placed no dollar sign
before their figures, uorlid they show the
amounts added To aud deducted from
as the law says should have been done.
The schedule alro shows no personal
property The court held that where
by computations the amounts added 60
or deducted from can be obtained, the
tax is vnlidnnd that in the absence oi
separate schedules of personal and real
property II Is To be- supposed that the
equalization WIS made upon the real
property ouy. The court SAYS
that Technically the report OF the
epuaIiz ttion committee Is inaccurate
but The intention oi the report
being clcnr upon its iacr, It is Of the
opinion that the circnit lndeecnmuitted
no error ia sustaining the validity of the
county tax, The question oi error ON
account OF the omission oi the dollar
marks was disposed oiunder "A previous
decision Of the court aud had not the
effect OF invaliding the tax.
Second The township taxes IN several
townships were objected Go ON the
the ground that the property was
not definitely described that no war
rant was attached TO the taN roll; that
the board Of review changed the equali-
zation after It's first meeting; That the
allpcrvisor neglected to include his
matcs Of the different parcels of land
~ that that work was done 10y the
board of review that lands were added
10 the roll after the rst meeting OF the
bonrd oi review that changes were
made by the bonrd 81 review after the
the timcchtnges could lawfully bc nude
that the records of the board ui review
was not signed by a mayority OF the
memlnrs and that the school tax was
Voicd upon at nn adjourned session oi
the annual meeting. Taking these
objections separately the court says
that ia the cusc where the warrant
did not accompany tile roll,
that fact. was not sufficient to in
validate the tax. A warrant mus {
accompany the tax roll when 1t IL Ia the
hands oi the township treasurer, II being
the authority 10y which he may force
collection soi d tax but, after the
execuafivc department iniled TO collect
n tax, the collection h tIrn delegated 60
another branch, viz: the judicial branch,
and that in answer to the claim of the
state on the torclosiug oi It's lien, it IL
not sufficient for the property holder to
show that the treasurer would have
been tresspasser had BE- attempted tO
enforce collection. In this connection
the court says that in the answer set ~
by the property holder to the action oI
the state To collect the tax the defects
pust be such that the court can sct
m injury to property rights I'll,
circuii court disrcgarded the objection
althcre being no warrant attached t.
roli aud tl,o biglirr court sustained
~ action.
Jn the matter OF dcscsbiug property
IL was shown that the supervisor
omitted the fraction after the Initial
describing the parcel; that hc omitted
the second initials on threc dccription-
al each quarter section; that he wrot,
ahe section. town aud rlusc nt the bcat
"a tlse column only. The court sayi
that, taking The roll in IFS ontirty th,
Authorizations nre such thatthe pieces o
property can be accurately distinguishes
and therefore the descriptions ~,
auIicicnt. Ia the matter ~ irregulari
fies ia the work of the boards OF royiew
it was shown that Ia one township th'
board oi review. on the 2Sth and 29tl
al May, made sweeping reductions il
valuations. Tho conrt held thn
Pheuc reductions could have hcpn mad'
st the regular meeting oi the board
weeL enrler but the action oi the boar,
ia changing the valuations alter thei
regular meeting time wax prciudiciaI t
the rights ~ property holders aud there
for the tax was invalid. la anothc
tnvnahfn N wins shown Lhot the roll Nu