Court Opinion

ID: 9571152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:29:25.097453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:01.523087
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(dissenting). I conceive the issue in this case somewhat differently than do my esteemed colleagues.
The majority opinion as I read it turns upon the failure of the taxpayer to pay the assessed tax under protest.
This is a strong indication of mistake. Had the company paid the tax under protest it would signify to me that the company knew exactly what it was doing and could not later be heard to claim the tax was mistakenly paid. It seems to me the company believed it owed the tax, and that the taxing authority believed it was entitled to pay*677ment of the amount assessed. Both were quite obviously wrong.
The situation here presented is one which the Legislature intended to correct when it used the phrase "mutual mistake of fact” in the statute.1
All the components of the phrase must be present to afford the relief provided. That the mistake was generated by a subsequent judicial holding is not to the point. The statute does not address itself to the issue of why the mistake was made.
So we have the element of mistake. Next query is, was it mutual? Certainly the taxpayer was mistaken since it paid a tax admittedly it need not have. Certainly the city was mistaken or it would not have accepted payment of a tax it knew was not owed.
So now we have "mistake” and "mutuality”. The only question left is, was it a mistake "of fact”?
I know of no nice, clean, razor-sharp delineation between mistakes of law and fact in a generic sense. Nor is this to be wondered at, because law, as such, does not exist outside of a factual circumstance. x
Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed), p 706, defines "fact” as: "A thing done; an action performed or an incident transpiring; an event or circumstance; an actual occurence”. All of the above fit what happened here. A taxpayer paid a tax which it subsequently developed it did not owe. The taxing authority collected a tax which it subsequently developed it was not entitled to. The composite of these two is a fact. It happened. It was a thing done. Both parties were mistaken as to the fact of a tax being owed.
I think the taxpayer should get his money back. *678Anything less would be unconscionable. To avoid this result is the intendment of the statute.
I vote to reverse; to order reimbursement of the tax paid without interest, and I would assess no costs.

 MCLA 211.53a; MSA 797(1).