Amory v. Assessors of Boston
| Decision Date | 27 June 1940 |
| Parties | AMORY et al. v. ASSESSORS OF BOSTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Forte, Judge.
Proceeding by Roger Amory and others for a writ of mandamus, commanding the Assessors of Boston to refrain from valuing taxable property in the City of Boston otherwise than at its fair cash value. A demurrer to the petition was overruled, and the case reported to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Demurrer sustained.
A. Lincoln, of Boston, for petitioners.
R. H. Hopkins, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of Boston, and N. Moger, of Roxbury, for respondents.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus. The trial judge in the Superior Court overruled the demurrer that was filed and reported the case to this court (G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 213, §§ 1A, 1B, inserted by St.1939, c. 257) upon the stipulation that, if his ruling was right, the writ is to issue as prayed for, otherwise the demurrer is to be sustained.
The peitioners are citizens and taxpayers of Boston, and all but one of them are registered voters in that city. The respondents constitute the board of assessors of Boston. The gist of the petition is that for many years it has been the practice of the board of assessors to value much of the taxable real estate in amounts far in excess of its fair cash value, in contravention of the provisions of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 59, § 38, which require board of assessors to ‘make a fair cash valuation of all the estate, real and personal, subject to taxation’ in the several cities and towns; that other taxable real estate has not been overvalued; that by following this practice of overvaluation, the city has been enabled to make appropriations for municipal purposes and to authorize indebtedness in amounts greatly exceeding the limits thereby imposed if the taxable property had been valued at its fair cash value; that laws limiting municipal indebtedness and the rate of taxation to a percentage of the valuation of said property have been evaded; that this practice has been followed by the respondents during the time that they have constituted the board of assessors; that the board is about to make a valuation of all real and personal property subject to taxation for the year 1940 and plans and intends to pursue the same practice that has been followed in previous years, unless otherwise directed by the court; and that the petition is brought in the public interest and not for the purpose of asserting the private rights of taxpayers whose property has been, or will be, overvalued, ‘for violation of which rights a statutory remedy by abatement proceedings is provided.’ The petitioners pray that a writ of mandamus issue commanding the respondents ‘to perform their official duties fairly and reasonably and to refrain from valuing taxable property in the city of Boston otherwise than at its fair cash value in accordance with their honest judgment,’ and for other appropriate relief.
It is unnecessary to recite the grounds of the demurrer except the following:
It is assumed, without deciding, that the petitioners are proper parties to the proceeding, if it lies (see Brooks v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 257 Mass. 91, 92, 93, 153 N.E. 322;Pettengell v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, 295 Mass. 473, 475, 4 N.E.2d 324), and that the prospective breach of duty alleged in the petition is sufficient if the remedy sought is otherwise proper. See Attorney General v. Boston, 123 Mass. 460;Kelley v. Board of Health of Peabody, 248 Mass. 165, 169, 143 N.E. 39;Bancroft v. Building Commissioner of Boston, 257 Mass. 82, 86, 153 N.E. 319.
G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 59, § 38, provides, among other things, that ‘The assessors of each city and town shall at the time appointed therefor make a fair cash valuation of all the estate, real and personai, subject to taxation therein * * *.’ By G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 41, § 29, an assessor is required, before entering upon the performance of his duties, to take an oath that he will neither overvalue nor undervalue any property subject to taxation, and by section 52 of said c. 59 the assessors are required to subscribe at the end of their valuation list that ‘[the list] is a full and accurate assessment upon all the property of each person, liable to taxation, at its full and fair cash value, according to [their] best knowledge and belief.’ The meaning of the phrase ‘fair cash value’ in relation to taxation is dealt with in Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont, 233 Mass. 190,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bettigole v. Assessors of Springfield
...was granted under c. 40, § 53, Jenney v. Assessors of Mattapoisett, 322 Mass. 76, 80-81, 76 N.E.2d 126. In Amory v. Assessors of Boston, 306 Mass. 354, 356-358, 28 N.E.2d 436, it was decided that, in the circumstances, mandamus did not lie to force the assessors to perform their duties corr......
-
Stone v. City of Springfield
...to prevent in advance allegedly improper and disproportionate assessments have not been successful. See Amory v. Assessors of Boston, 306 Mass. 354, 357-358, 28 N.E.2d 436 (mandamus held not available, in view of G.L. c. 40, § 53); Amory v. Assessors of Boston, 310 Mass. 199, 203-204, 37 N.......
-
Dube v. Mayor of City of Fall River
...v. Trustees of Deerfield Academy, 252 Mass. 258, 147 N.E. 878;Tuckerman v. Moynihan, 282 Mass. 562, 569, 185 N.E. 2;Amory v. Assessors of Boston, 306 Mass. 354, 28 N.E.2d 436. The petitioners contend that the order of the city council seeks to discontinue a portion of a public highway and, ......
-
Shoppers' World, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Framingham
...somewhat different aspect the general problem of unequal and nonproportional property tax assessments considered in Amory v. Assessors of Boston, 306 Mass. 354, 28 N.E.2d 436; Amory v. Assessors of Boston, 310 Mass. 199, 37 N.E.2d 459; Carr v. Assessors of Springfield, 339 Mass. 89, 157 N.E......