Bates v. Bassett
| Decision Date | 24 September 1888 |
| Citation | 15 A. 200,60 Vt. 530 |
| Parties | ALLEN BATES v. GEORGE W. BASSETT |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
MAY TERM, 1888
REPLEVIN for one cow, etc., taken by the defendant by virtue of his warrant as constable and collector of taxes. Plea that the property was taken by defendant, as collector of taxes on a rate bill and warrant. Heard by the court, March Term, 1887, TAFT, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
John G. Wing, for the plaintiff.
It is undeniably true that towns have no power in the absence of special statutory authority to levy taxes upon their inhabitants. It is undeniably true that under such statutory authority they are limited to taxation for municipal or public purposes. It is undeniably true that in the care, preservation and management of their property, whether it consist of buildings, tools, road-machines or anything else, they not only have the clear right, but in justice to the tax-payers, are in duty bound to act with the discretion of a prudent and provident owner.
Towns have the clear right to build town houses for the accommodation of its meetings and rooms for its municipal offices. Expenditures for such purposes are proper incidental expenses within the range of section 2751, Rev. Laws.
In this case the town was confronted with a calamity which compelled a choice between building a new town house or repairing the old one. It might lawfully do either. It elected to build a new one. The building of the new one was an object of a public character which made taxation for the purpose lawful. Having the power to impose taxation for the new building, the town in legal meeting is the only umpire to decide how much it will expend in such building. We do not say that the discretion of the majority of the voters is unlimited in respect to a proposed expenditure for a proper municipal purpose. Cases may be easily conceived where a majority might vote an excessive tax from a reckless disregard of all rules of prudence. But courts do not undertake to set up their own views of the propriety of municipal actions as the standard by which to try the action of a town in the exercise of a power lodged with it by the law, but leaves the exercise of such power just where the legislature has left it, in the discretion of the voters until it is seen that the discretion is abused by a willful perversion of the power to illegal ends or abuse of its exercise that demands restriction.
The town of Barre might well anticipate its prospective needs in providing itself with a new town hall. It was not tied down to the iron rule of absolute necessity in determining the kind or style of its town hall. But...
To continue reading
Request your trial