Case Name: GAGE v. CITY OF SAGINAW
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1901-01-29
Citations: 128 Mich. 682
Docket Number: 
Parties: GAGE v. CITY OF SAGINAW.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 682–685

Head Matter:
GAGE v. CITY OF SAGINAW.
1. Taxes — Payment—Duress.
A payment of taxes on land to enable the owner to effect a sale no demand of payment or threat of levy having been made, is not an involuntary payment.
2. Same — Voluntary Payment — Right to Recover.
The only right to recover a void tax voluntarily paid is that given by 1 Comp. Laws, § 3876, under which the payment must have been made to a city or township treasurer under written protest, and suit brought within 30 days thereafter.
3. Same — Defenses.
But it is no defense to an action under such statute that the
. tax was paid solely to facilitate a sale of the premises.
4. Same — Reassessment—Authority.
Authority to reassess a tax must proceed from the board of supervisors.
5. Judgments — Proof—Enrolled Decree.
Where a record on appeal shows the introduction in evidence of an enrolled decree, which is set out in full, reciting the presence of both parties by counsel, it cannot be said that the adjudication was not sufficiently proved.
Error to Saginaw; Snow, J.
Submitted December 6, 1900;
opinion filed (for affirmance) January 29, 1901.
Rehearing granted June 24, 1901;
reargued October 25, 1901;
former order reversed December 3, 1901.
Assumpsit by Alice B. Gage against the city of Saginaw to recover taxes paid under protest. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
William G. Gage {Gamp & Broolcs, of counsel), for appellant.
Henry E. Naegely, for appellee.
The original opinion in this case was withheld from publication pending a rehearing.

Opinion:
Grant, J.
Plaintiff's real estate in the defendant city was taxed in 1894. The taxes were set aside by the court in 1897. The sanee were reassessed in 1899. Plaintiff was negotiating a sale of this property, and for that purpose desired these taxes paid, and the alleged cloud upon her property in consequence thereof removed. For this purpose she applied to the city treasurer to pay them, and, as well, those of 1897 and 1898. The treasurer had made no threats- of levy or demand for payment. He had only published the prescribed notice in regard to the payment of taxes. She, with her husband, went to the office of the city treasurer to pay. What there occurred appears from her husband's testimony as follows:
" Q. And that you wanted to pay them under protest ?
"A. I went there to make a formal protest against the payment of the taxes, and said to Mr. Messner, ' Mr. Messner, my wife is here, and I wish you to make demand upon her for the taxes of '94, reassessed in 1899, and the taxes of 1899; it is desired to pay them under protest;' and that is in substance what I said to him. I then introduced him to my wife, and stated that before her and Mr. Messner. I don't remember what he did say."
The court directed a verdict for the defendant.
The direction was right. The case is ruled by Weston v. County of Luce, 102 Mich. 528 (61 N. W. 15).
The other Justices concurred.