
    SCHAEFER v. WOODMERE CEMETERY ASSN.
    Municipal Corporations — Taxation—Action May Not be Brought por Taxes on Real Estate — Jurisdiction—Statutes.
    Municipal corporation may not maintain action to recover taxes and special.assessments levied against real estate; there being no statutory authority, court is without jurisdiction in such case (1 Comp. Laws 1929, §3431, 3438).
    Appeal from Wayne; Merriam (DeWitt H.), J.
    Submitted October 20, 1931.
    (Docket No. 153, Calendar No. 35,838.)
    Decided December 8, 1931.
    Rehearing denied March 3, 1932.
    Assumpsit by Edwin A. Schaefer, treasurer of the city of Fordson, against Woodmere Cemetery Association, a Michigan corporation, for taxes and special assessments. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      James E. Greene, Corporation Counsel, and Austin & Newman, Special Counsel, for plaintiff.
    
      Trowbridge, Lewis & Watkins (Edwin C. Lewis and Milton F. Mallender, of counsel), for defendant.
   Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant in the circuit court on the common counts in assumpsit to recover from it general city taxes for the years 1926 and 1927 and parts 1 and 2 of a special assessment levied against the property for paving Riverside drive, together with interest. Defendant pleaded the general issue and gave notice the property of defendant was exempt from .taxation. There was judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We are met by tbe question of the right of plaintiff to maintain this suit.

“The only case provided for by statute wherein suit may be brought for unpaid taxes by the township is where taxes on personalty have been returned unpaid for want of property on which to levy. 1 Comp. Laws 1871, § 1014. In such case thé treasurer may sue in the name of the township. Taxes on real estate may be collected by distress on goods and chattels (1 Comp. Laws 1871, § 1003), but if not so collected the tax is returned unpaid and the land sold to make it.” Staley v. Township of Columbus, 36 Mich. 38.

This is still the rule. It follows the suit in question will not lie. This question was raised on the argument and it goes to the jurisdiction of the court. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred. 
      
       See 1 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 3431, 3438.
     