Michigan Supreme Court, 1888

Cox v. Welcher

Michigan Supreme Court · Decided January 19, 1888 · Campbell, Other

68 Mich. 263; 36 N.W. 69; 1888 Mich. LEXIS 916

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Hudson Motor Car Co. v. City of Detroit (Mich. 1937)
Byram v. Thurston County (Wash. 1926)
Board of Commissioners v. Adler (Ind. Ct. App. 1922)
Newberry v. City of Detroit (Mich. 1915)
Brown v. Warner (Mich. 1909)
Pere Marquette Railroad v. City of Ludington (Mich. 1903)
Oakley Country Club v. Long (Mass. 1949)
Great Northern Railway Co. v. State (Wash. 1939)
Blanchard v. City of Detroit (Mich. 1931)
Union Bag & Paper Corp. v. State (Wash. 1931)
Kerschensteiner v. Northern Michigan Land Co. (Mich. 1928)
American District Telegraph Co. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1925)
Morris v. City of New Haven (Conn. 1906)
Canfield Salt & Lumber Co. v. Township of Manistee (Mich. 1894)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover back an illegal drain tax paid under protest to defendant, who was about to levy on his property. Defendant himself drew up the pro. test for plaintiff to sign, which was general, and not specific, as to reasons of illegality. The court below held the protest should have been specific, and directed judgment for defendant.

Our'statutes provide that in some cases a person may pay taxes in advance of the time they can be enforced,' and do *264so under protest. This protest, which is made under an exceptional statute, is required to be specific. But such a payment under no stress of process is a voluntary payment, and could not be recovered back without statutory permission. Where payments are involuntary, and made under legal duress, there has never been any rule requiring a specific protest. The attempt to compel payment where there is no legal burden is regarded as a legal injury, and payment made to avoid the seizure and sale of property to pay the wrongful claim can be recovered' back as an extorted sum for which there was no consideration. The principle is so familiar, under our own decisions, as to need no citation of cases. The court below did not draw the proper line between voluntary and involuntary payment. Plaintiff should have been allowed to recover.

Judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.