Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 111.13 (2026)

Warrant annexed to roll; contents.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE FOURTH CLASS CITY ACT

Act 215 of 1895

111.13 Warrant annexed to roll; contents.

Sec. 13.

The warrant annexed to each roll shall state the several amounts levied therein to be paid into the city and county treasuries respectively; and shall command the city treasurer to collect from the several persons named in the said roll the several sums named in the last column thereof opposite their respective names, and to pay over and to account for all moneys collected and specified in the roll as in the said warrant directed, on the first day of March then next ensuing. If, however, the council have decided to have the taxes levied and collected in 2 installments and the roll be the July roll, the warrant annexed thereto shall command the city treasurer to collect from the several persons named in said roll the several sums named in the last column thereof opposite their respective names, and to pay over and account for all moneys collected and specified in the roll as in said warrant directed, on or before the fifteenth day of September next following. Or, if the roll be the December roll, the warrant annexed thereto shall command the city treasurer to collect, pay over and account as aforesaid, within the time first above limited, as in cases in which the city has but 1 collection of taxes, and the several warrants shall authorize the treasurer, in case any person shall neglect to pay his tax, to levy the same by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of such person.

History: 1895, Act 215, Eff. Aug. 30, 1895 ;-- Am. 1897, Act 239, Imd. Eff. June 2, 1897 ;-- CL 1897, 3330 ;-- CL 1915, 3254 ;-- CL 1929, 2176 ;-- CL 1948, 111.13

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2021 · leading case: Viron Int'l Corp. v. David Boland, Inc., 237 F. Supp. 2d 812 (W.D. Mich. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Viron Int'l Corp. v. David Boland, Inc., 237 F. Supp. 2d 812 (W.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 3× “See MooRe’s FedeRal PRACTICE § 111.13[l][b] at 111-66-67 (3d ed.). With the exception of the forum selection clause, the remaining § 1404(a) factors either do not apply or are a “wash” in this case.”

Kelly Servs. v. Eidnes, 530 F. Supp. 2d 940 (E.D. Mich. 2008). “” 17 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 111.13[l][f][i]. The determination of relative levels of inconvenience “rest[s] within the sound judicial discretion of the district judge.”

Fluidtech, Inc. v. Gemu Valves, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 2d 762 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “2004) (citing Moore’s Federal Practice, § 111.13[l][F][i]), this is not the case when a forum selection clause governs the action.”

McCuiston v. Hoffa, 313 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Mich. 2004). “” 17 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 111.13[l][f][i]. The determination of relative levels of inconvenience “rest[s] within the sound judicial discretion of the district judge.”

Bennett v. Am. Online, Inc., 471 F. Supp. 2d 814 (E.D. Mich. 2007). “2d at 1136-37, and Moore’s Federal Practice § 111.13[l][b] at 111-66-67 (3d ed.)). One of the plaintiffs principal objections to the magistrate judge’s report is to the part of the recommendation that the entire case be transferred rather than just the claims against AOL.”

Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employes Div./IBT v. Canadian Nat'l Ry. (E.D. Mich. 2020). “, 2003 WL 1572007 , at *2 (citing 17 Moore’s Federal Practice § 111.13[1][o]) (“Judicial economy is served by allowing related actions to proceed in the same district.”

Brown v. PSCU, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2020). “) (same) (quoting 17 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 111.13[1][f][i]). The party seeking to transfer the case should specify the key witnesses to be called and the nature of their testimony.”

Panaserve, LLC v. Trion Solutions, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2021). “6, 2020) (quoting Moore’s Federal Practice — Civil § 111.13). Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor is neutral.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.