Charles Glidden v. John Harrington

Decision Date06 April 1903
Docket NumberNo. 199,199
Citation189 U.S. 255,23 S.Ct. 574,47 L.Ed. 798
PartiesCHARLES J. GLIDDEN, Trustee, Plff. in Err. , v. JOHN H. HARRINGTON, Collector
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This was an action brought in the superior court of Middlesex county by Harrington, collector of taxes for the city of Lowell, to recover a tax upon personal property, assessed upon the defendant as trustee, for the year 1889.

The case resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, which was carried by exceptions to the supreme judicial court, where the exceptions were ordered overruled (179 Mass. 486, 61 N. E. 54) and the case remanded to the superior court, in which judgment was entered.

Mr. Harvey N. Shepard for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. George F. Richardson, Francis W. Qua, and William A. Hogan for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:

This case involves the question whether the proceedings taken to enforce this tax deprived the defendant Glidden of his property without due process of law, within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The facts of the case are substantially that a resolution for the assessment of taxes for the year 1889 was passed by the municipal council of Lowell, and approved by the mayor on March 22 of that year; and it was ordered that a copy of the resolution be furnished to the assessors on or before April 1. Before proceeding to make the assessment, the assessors, in the latter part of April, gave proper notice to the inhabitants of the city, by posting in public places in the several wards of said city, notifications that they were about to assess taxes, and requiring the inhabitants to bring into the assessor's office on or before June 15 of that year true lists of their polls and personal estates not exempt from taxation.

Two members of the board of assessors were appointed a committee 'to inquire into telephone matters for taxation.' The committee 'advised that a suitable person be sent to Albany to look up matters in that direction,' which committee was authorized by the board to use its discretion in the matter. The expert employed by the committee to look up foreign corporations reported stock of the Erie Telegraph & Telephone Company held by individuals in Lowell, and mentioned seven trustees one of whom was the defendant. On July 25, 1889, the board 'voted to tax (assess) the directors of the Erie Telegraph & Telephone Company as trustees $160,000 each.' There were $1,600,000 held by ten trustees, of which the defendant was one. No list of personal estate held in trust had been or was submitted by defendant. The tax bill, as trustee, was delivered personally to the defendant about September first. About two months after such assessment, September 10, the warrant for the collection of the taxes was put in the hands of the collector.

On February 24, 1890, defendant filed a statement to the effect that, although he was informed that certain shares of stock stood in his name as trustee, he was not the owner of the shares and not taxable therefor, and thereupon made application as trustee for an abatement, upon which application a number of hearings were had. But, before the proceedings were determined, this action was brought by a succeeding collector.

Upon the trial in the superior court, it appeared that the defendant was assessed as trustee upon certain shares of three telephone companies, which the assessors understood were held by him in trust for the Erie Telegraph & Telephone Company. The basis of valuation adopted by the assessors was the market price of the shares of this latter company. Defendant offered evidence tending to show that at the time of the assessment he owned no personal property whatever as trustee; that said shares were owned by the Erie Telegraph & Telephone Company and were in its possession and control, although they stood in his name; and further evidence tending to show that said property was not taxable to him, and was not within the jurisdiction of the assessors or of the state. This evidence was excluded by the court, which ruled that the only questions for the jury were 'whether the assessors ascertained as nearly as possible the particulars of the personal estate held by the defendant as trustee, for the purposes of making this assessment, and whether, having obtained those particulars, they estimated such property at its just value, according to their best information and belief.'

The court held the validity of the tax to depend upon the question whether the assessors had jurisdiction to make the assessment. Having found that the defendant was an inhabitant of Lowell, and had taxable personal property there, it was thought that he was within the jurisdiction of the as- sessors, and that it made no difference whether such property was all held by him individually, or partly as individual and partly as trustee, inasmuch as it was all a personal tax. The court, having held that the proceedings conformed to the state statute, and that defendant's only remedy was the statutory proceeding for abatement, it only remains for us to consider whether these proceedings constitute due process of law within the 14th Amendment.

This was not a special assessment, but the ordinary annual tax upon personal property....

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Scott v. Scott
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 25 Abril 1947
    ... ... Tillson, 140 U.S. 316, 11 S.Ct. 825, 35 ... L.Ed. 419; Glidden v. Harrington, 189 U.S. 255, 23 ... S.Ct. 574, 47 L.Ed. 798; Hibben v ... ...
  • Communications Satellite Corp. v. F. C. C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 14 Octubre 1977
    ... ... C., were on the brief, for petitioner ...         John E. Ingle, Counsel, F.C.C., Washington, D. C., with whom Ashton R. Hardy, ... ...
  • Baker v. Paxton
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 8 Mayo 1923
    ... ... To the ... same effect see Glidden v. Harrington, 189 U.S. 255, ... 47 L.Ed. 798, 23 S.Ct. 574. See also ... ...
  • Old Colony R. Co. v. Assessors of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 26 Junio 1941
    ...v. Assessors of Quincy, 305 Mass. 509, 26 N.E.2d 313;Choate v. Assessors of Boston, 304 Mass. 298, 23 N.E.2d 882;Glidden v. Harrington, 189 U.S. 255, 23 S.Ct. 574, 47 L.Ed. 798;Burrill v. Locomobile Co., 258 U.S. 34, 42 S Ct. 256, 66 L.Ed. 450. Many of these regulations may be generally con......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT