(concurring in affirmance). While I agree that the judgment in this case should be affirmed, I do not agree that the assessment was void from the beginning. On January 1, 1958, tax day, Continental Motors owned and had in its possession personal property of an assessed value of $819,099-,98. It also had possession of United States govern*20ment property worth. $2,476,343.02. No disclosure of these facts was made to the assessing authorities.
Plaintiff did not file a sworn statement of taxable personal property in its possession as required by CL 1948, §211.18 (Stat Ann §7.18). Continental furnished only a gross figure, including all personal property. It is the claim of the defendants that, whether intentional or not, the behavior of Continental had had the effect of hiding its own personal property from taxation for a number of years. Defendants say that, because of this situation, it was necessary for the assessor to place all of the personal property on the roll and that the assessment was valid on the authority of Comstock v. City of Grand Rapids, 54 Mich 641.
Personal property assessments are made upon the total value of taxable personalty, not by specific parcel as is real estate. CLS 1961, § 211.24 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 7.24). Because of this, the need to make proper disclosure is evident. Erroneously including exempt property within the taxable mass does not result in a void assessment but merely in an excessive one, subject to review by the same procedure as any other improper assessment.
It was the duty of Continental to make a proper disclosure. If it believed that any property in its possession was tax exempt, it should so state, rather than including its own property with that of the United States government. The initial miscue was Continental’s. The assessing authorities had no choice but to proceed as they did.
In my opinion, had matters so stood, the assessment would have been a valid one under the authority of Comstock, supra. In that case, the plaintiff’s railroad cars were placed on the tax rolls of both the First ward and the Fifth ward of Grand Rapids. Chief Justice Cooley, writing for a unanimous Court, said:
*21“But it does not follow that because they ought not to have been assessed in the first ward the assessment was void. Personal property is not, according to the system which prevails in this State, assessable on specific enumeration, but it is assessable in gross, and specific descriptions are mere surplusage. In this case it appears beyond question and is not disputed that the plaintiff was assessable for personal property in the first ward of the city. He had a warehouse and an office there, and he had stock in trade. It was entirely right and proper therefore to put him upon the roll for taxation in that ward, and there was and could have been no want of jurisdiction in doing so. The error on the part of the assessor, if there was any, was in including these cars as part of the ‘goods, wares or merchandise, or stock in trade,’ which was taxable in that ward.
“If the assessment had been made of the goods, wares, et cetera, in one gross sum, without any specification of particulars, there could have been no question whatever that the assessment would have been valid, and that the plaintiff, in order to obtain relief from any portion thereof, must have appealed to the board of review as provided by statute. This must be considered settled by Williams v. City of Saginaw, 51 Mich 120. But the mention of the cars for separate valuation can make no difference. The plaintiff knew, or was bound to know, that the law required that he should be taxed for personal property in the first ward of the city, and he therefore had constructive notice of the assessment actually made, and should have appealed in respect to any part of it of which he could justly complain. There is no analogy between this case and the case of one who is assessed in a township where he has no taxable property at all, and with whose assessments he is therefore not concerned. The assessment in such a case would be void for want of jurisdiction, while here, if the plaintiff is correct in supposing he was *22not taxable in the fifth ward, it was merely excessive.”
While plaintiff did not appear before the board of review to protest the assessment, its failure to do so was excusable under a peculiar fact situation which involved that board fixing the assessment after the time for the taxpayer to appear had passed. Continental did promptly complain to the State tax commission that the property should not have been assessed “because of its ownership by the United States of America”, specifically stating:
“The property assessed consists in part of Government owned facilities, which makes up a substantial portion of the assessment.”
Continental asked for a hearing:
“so as to delete entirely therefrom all personal property assessments made upon any personal property the title of which is absolutely in the United States of America.”
Continental, having pursued its administrative remedies, was not precluded from seeking other relief. I agree with Justice Black that Continental Motors Corporation v. Township of Muskegon, 365 Mich 191, is controlling and vote to affirm the judgment.
T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Souris and Smith, JJ., concurred with Adams, J.