Case Name: SALISBURY v. CITY OF DETROIT
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1932-04-04
Citations: 258 Mich. 235
Docket Number: Calendar No. 36,277
Parties: SALISBURY v. CITY OF DETROIT.
Judges: . Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Wibst, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred. McDonald, J., did not sit.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 258
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
SALISBURY v. CITY OF DETROIT.
1. Taxation — Remedy to Recover. Illegal Taxes Paid.
Remedy to recover illegal taxes paid is in assumpsit for money had and received.
2. Equity — Jurisdiction—Multiplicity op Suits.
Existence of number of independent actions at law does not constitute multiplicity of suits which confers equitable jurisdiction.
Appeal from Wayne; Sample (George W.), J., presiding.
Submitted January 26, 1932.
(Calendar No. 36,277.)
Decided April 4, 1932.
Bill by William Salisbury and others against the City of Detroit, a municipal, corporation, and another to recover special paving assessments, on an invalid assessment. From order .transferring cause to law side of court, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
James F. Lane (Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, John C. Spaulding, and George W. Bourke, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Paul T. Dwyer (Clarence E. Wilcox, of counsel), for defendants.

Opinion:
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 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.