Inhabitants of Bucksport v. Swazey

• Decision Date: 15 March 1933
• Citation: 165 A. 164
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF BUCKSPORT v. SWAZEY.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

165 A. 164

INHABITANTS OF BUCKSPORT

v. SWAZEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 15, 1933.

Report from Superior Court, Hancock County.

Action by the Inhabitants of Bucksport against Albert C. Swazey. On report Judgment for plaintiff.

Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, and TIIAXTER, JJ.

Fellows & Fellows, of Bangor, for plaintiff.

Fred L. Mason, of Ellsworth, for defendant.

STURGIS, Justice.

This action of debt for taxes is reported to this court for final determination. The case stated includes facts agreed upon and a transcript of testimony. Judgment is to be rendered on so much of the evidence as is legally admissible.

The defendant is sued for a tax amounting to $432.58 assessed in the plaintiff town in 1931 upon his real estate, and also for a tax of $27.40 for that year assessed upon land which his father, John M. Swazey, then deceased, had formerly owned. He attacks the sufficiency of the assessments and attempts to avoid payment of the taxes by showing an undervaluation of other taxable property in the town.

The defendant's real estate was listed for assessment in the records by parcels, each being described generally as to character and location with specification of buildings, if any, and such designating names as had attached. In numerous instances, the acreage of the land was stated. The appraisal value of each lot was recorded, but the tax was assessed on the aggregate valuation. The assessment against the estate of John M. Swazey was upon one parcel of real estate also listed by general description.

This is not a case where the defendant's person or property is levied upon by direct warrant or where a forfeiture may ensue, but is a proceeding for the collection of taxes by suit. In this form of action, it is not necessary that the assessment contain a particular description of the property to be taxed nor that separate valuations be made in case there are several parcels. Rockland v. Farnsworth, 111 Me. 315, 319, 89 A. 65; Foxcroft v. Campmeeting Association, 86 Me. 78, 29 A. 951; Rockland v. Ulmer, 84 Me. 503, 24 A. 949; Cressey v. Parks, 76 Me. 534.

The evidence in support of the defense that, as a result of undervaluation of other taxable properties, the defendant was overrated, was not legally admissible. If such were the fact, the remedy lies in another proceeding. The defense is not open in this action. Greenville v. Blair, 104 Me. 444, 446, 72 A. 177; Dover v. Water Co., 90 Me. 180, 38 A....