Pung v. Isabella County · ¶87

If the government did not attempt to sell either part of the property or personal property first, then the taxpayer could reclaim his property or compensation for the taking. “A sale of the whole when less would pay the tax,” such as the County’s sale here, “is void.” Cooley 343; accord, Slater v. Maxwell, 6 Wall. 268, 274 (1868) (“The sale of the entire tract in one body would have vitiated the proceeding, if bids could have been obtained upon an offer of a part of the property”). A property owner in the Pungs’ position was entitled to relief from the government in trespass or trover for taking more than was necessary to repay the debt. See Denton v. Carroll, 4 App. Div. 532, 537, 40 N. Y. S. 19, 22 (1896) (“When several chattels are seized, and enough have been sold to satisfy the [tax] demand, the sale of the remainder is a trespass, and the officer becomes liable”); Cone v. For est,…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.