City of Lowell v. County Com'rs

• Citation: 146 Mass. 403,16 N.E. 8
• Parties: CITY OF LOWELL v. COUNTY COM'RS.
• Decision Date: 06 March 1888
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

146 Mass. 403
16 N.E. 8

CITY OF LOWELL
v.
COUNTY COM'RS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

March 6, 1888.

Reserved case from supreme judicial court; DEVENS, Judge.

Petition by the city of Lowell against the county commissioners of Middlesex county, for a writ of certiorari directed to the respondents commanding them to certify to the court a record of their proceedings in the matter of the abatement of certain taxes assessed by the petitioner upon the Merrimack Manufacturing Company of Lowell. At the hearing in the supreme judicial court the case was reserved for the consideration of the full court. A similar petition was also brought at the same time as the above by the same petitioner relative to the acts of the commissioners in abating a tax assessed upon the Boott Cotton Mills, in said Lowell, and the opinion in the first case governs the second case; the facts in each being substantially the same. The facts appear in the opinion.

[146 Mass. 408]J.N. Marshall and W.F. Courtney, for petitioner, (in case of Merrimack Manufacturing Company.)

The commissioners, having found that the Merrimack Manufacturing Company did not file a list, and that there was no good cause why such list was not seasonably brought in, should have dismissed said company's petition; they had no jurisdiction of the same. Pub.St. c. 11, § 72; Charlestown v. County Com'rs, 101 Mass. 87, 91;Winnisimmet Co. v. Chelsea, 6 Cush. 477;

[16 N.E. 9]

Porter v. County Com'rs, 5 Gray, 365;Otis Co. v. Ware, 8 Gray, 509. The word “person” in chapter 11, Pub.St., includes corporation. Otis Co. v. Ware, supra. Pub.St. c. 13, § 41, is based on the assumption that the corporations comply with the requirements of law, and have the right to appeal from an adverse decision by the assessors. If the right of appeal has been lost, no new right is there given. All acts and parts of acts in pari materia are to be taken together, as if they were one law. Potter's Dwar.St. 189. It should be borne in mind that the public statutes were passed at one and the same time, and constitute one act. Com. v. Goding, 3 Metc. 130. The company's petition was not filed within one month from the time of the refusal of an abatement by the assessors, and the commissioners had no jurisdiction of the same. Pub.St. c. 11, § 71; Id. c. 13, § 41; and cases before cited. Pub.St. c. 3, § 3, par. 13; Elder v. Manufacturing Co., 4 Gray, 201-204. The commissioners had no right to allow the amendment; it made a different case from that before the assessors. It was error to admit the testimony of Charles H. Dalton. The manner in which shares were held had no tendency to show the value of the company's property; nor did the market value of the stock in the company; and much less so when the inquiry was only as to part of the property. Chicopee v. County Com'rs, 16 Gray, 38. The question at issue was not the worth of the land for manufacturing purposes, but its fair cash value. Besides, Mr. Dalton was not qualified to testify as to the same, as he had never bought or sold land in Lowell for manufacturing purposes. Fairbanks v. Fitchburg, 110 Mass. 224. The commissioners erred in excluding the evidence offered by the city as to the value of the property on May 1, 1886, and in ruling that, as a matter of law, they could not hear evidence or determine the true value of said property at said date, and that such was not the inquiry before them, nor to determine between the valuation of the tax commissioners and of the assessors. Pub.St. c. 13, § 41. The property was but one substantive subject of taxation, and should have been so regarded by the commissioners. Water-Power Co. v. Boston, 9 Metc. 199, 204. The record of the commissioners is uncertain, defective, and erroneous. It there appears that their action is contrary to their rulings, and that their findings and the abatement of the tax are based upon the original, and not amended, petition.

J.N. Marshall and W.F. Courtney, for petitioner in case of Boott Cotton Mills.

The commissioners had no authority to allow the amendment to the petition. It was error to admit the testimony of Charles J. Goodwin. Pub.St. c. 11, § 45; Id. c. 13, § 41. It was error to exclude evidence of the cash value of the property. Pub.St. c. 13, § 41. Every word and clause of a statute is presumed to have been intended to have some force and effect. Opinion of Court, 22 Pick. 573;Com. v. McCaughey, 9 Gray, 297. The interpretation should lean strongly to avoid absurd consequences, injustice, and even great inconvenience. Com. v. Loring, 8 Pick. 370;Com. v. Slack, 19 Pick. 304;Ayers v. Knox, 7 Mass. 306, 310.

Andrew J. Waterman, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

In 1864, and subsequently in 1865, when the present corporation tax law was enacted, (or that which is substantially the one now in force,) there existed in the general law as to abatement of taxes the provision now...