Court Opinion

ID: 7949836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 23:25:13.042552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:34:05.686884
License: Public Domain

Ostrander, J.
(dissenting). It is a sound rule, approved by this court (City of Big Rapids v. Board of Sup’rs of Mecosta Co., 99 Mich. 351 [58 N. W. 358]), that property owned by the State, or by the United States, or by a municipality for public uses, is not subject to taxation, unless so provided by positive legislation. The rule is the same whether the tax sought to be imposed is a general or a special tax, an exaction for general or for special local purposes. The application of the rule is not affected by the fact that the legislature may have expressly exempted such property from, taxation.
*495In Iron Mountain Public Schools v. O’Connor, 143 Mich. 35 (108 N. W. 426), it appeared that after land had been listed for taxation, the roll completed, approved by the board of review, and returned to the board of supervisors for equalization, the petitioner bought the land for school purposes. Subsequently, the tax was spread thereon and not paid. The land was returned delinquent and sold at the annual tax sale under the usual decree. The school district filed its petition to vacate and set aside the decree and cancel and set aside the deed made upon the sale. There was a demurrer to the petition, which was overruled. The order overruling was set aside by this court upon the ground that the land was subject to the assessment when it was made and when the township .board of review passed upon and reviewed the assessment, and no power was lodged in any person to thereafter take from the roll property listed therein; that there must be some definite period when, a purchaser, whose property is generally exempt, must purchase property subject to the tax levied or to be levied thereon. Usually, the question whether a tax must be paid by one person or by another arises in cases where the land is subject to taxation, and between the vendor and the purchaser. No such question is involved here.
The land here was not liable to assessment when the proceeding to assess it was begun because it belonged to the State. The title, it is true, was in the regents. But as affecting the question here involved the beneficial owner was the State. Auditor General v. Regents of University, 83 Mich. 467 (47 N. W. 440, 10 L. R. A. 376). Under the rule stated, it was. not liable to be assessed for a special improvement because it belonged to the State, and there was no law which permitted land so owned to be subjected to assessment and sold for a tax or levy for special im*496provements. The title to the land passed to the regents of the university in 1905. The regents sold it to appellant in June, 1912. Before that time the city of Bay City had ordered the construction of the sewer, a survey and estimate of cost had been made, reported and approved, a contract for the construction of the sewer had been let, and the sewer was completed in the summer of 1912. The roll of the special assessment was made and approved in March, 1913. The proceeding was a single one; the validity of the assessment depending upon the lawfulness of the first quite as much as upon the legality of the last step or act taken therein. As. between the municipality instituting the proceeding and its officers and the land in question, jurisdiction to subject it and its owner to' the exaction attached when the proceeding was instituted. Appellant bought it subject to no lien. It purchased it from an owner in whose hands, it was not liable to the assessment.
It is my opinion, therefore, that the decree should be reversed and one entered annulling the tax complained about.
Stone, J., concurred with Ostrander, J.