Talbot v. Inhabitants of Wesley

• Decision Date: 06 June 1917
• Citation: 100 A. 937,116 Me. 208
• Parties: TALBOT et al. v. INHABITANTS OF WESLEY.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

100 A. 937

116 Me. 208

TALBOT et al.

v. INHABITANTS OF WESLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 6, 1917.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Washington County, at Law.

Petition by Elizabeth B. Talbot and others to the assessors of the Town of Wesley was denied, and they appealed. Case reported. Petition dismissed.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and CORNISH, BIRD, HALEY, and MADIGAN, JJ.

C. B. & E. C. Donworth, of Machias, for appellants. James H. Gray, of Lubec, for appellees.

HALEY, J. This is an appeal from the refusal of the assessors of the town of Wesley to grant an abatement of taxes for the year 1915, the proceeding being instituted under the provisions of the Revised Statutes, c. 9, § 79, and is reported to this court on an agreed statement of facts.

In 1915, the assessors of the town assessed the real estate described in the application for an abatement. The assessed tax was $318.50. The petitioners were, at the time of the assessment, the owners of the land taxed, as devisees under the last will and testament of James R. Talbot, who was in his lifetime the owner of said land. June 30, 1915, Elizabeth B. Talbot, widow of James R. Talbot, acting for herself as agent of the heirs and devisees of said James R. Talbot, paid, under protest, said tax less the discount. The petitioners were nonresidents of said town of Wesley. After the payment as aforesaid, the petitioners made written application to the assessors of Wesley to abate said tax. The assessors refused to make an abatement, and so notified the petitioners in writing, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Judicial Court.

The assessment was made as of land of nonresidents and was assessed to "J. R. Talbot Est." The learned counsel for the petitioners admit that the assessment was invalid if the terms employed by the assessors, "J. R. Talbot Est.," be interpreted estate of J. R. Talbot. There is nothing in the record that authorizes any other interpretation. If they did not intend to tax it to the deceased, X R. Talbot, why the letters "Est of J. R. Talbot"? If it was intended to assess it to the devisees of J. R. Talbot, they would not have added "Est." The addition of "Est." shows that it was the intention to assess it to the estate of the deceased, and the law is clearly settled that an assessment of taxes upon lands to the estate of a deceased person is void. Fairfield v. Woodman, 76 Me. 549; Philbrook v. Clark, 77 Me. 176; Dresden v. Bridge, 90 Me. 489, 38 Atl. 545; Morrill v. Lovett, 95 Me. 169-170, 49 Atl. 666, 56 I* R. A. 634.

In the last-cited case, it was held that the assessments, which were to the estate of the deceased person, were void, and the court said:

"These taxes were utterly void. They never had any effect. They never created any lien or raised any obligation to pay. A void tax is no tax. It is as if there never had been any attempt at assessment. The owner is under no duty, either at law or in equity, to pay it."

And so of the assessment in this case. The tax was utterly void. It created no lien upon the real estate, nor raised any obligation upon the part of the petitioner or any other persons to pay it. It was the same as if there had never been any...