City of Rockland v. Dimer

• Decision Date: 31 May 1892
• Citation: 84 Me. 503,24 A. 949
• Parties: CITY OF ROCKLAND v. DIMER.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

24 A. 949

84 Me. 503

CITY OF ROCKLAND

v. DIMER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 31, 1892.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Knox county.

Action of debt by the city of Rockland against Fred. T. Ulmer to recover a tax assessed for the year 1888. On report. Judgment for plaintiff.

W. H. Fogler, City Sol., for plaintiff.

C. E. & A. S. Littlefield. for defendant.

EMERY, J. The city of Rockland has brought this action of debt under Rev. St. c. 6, § 175, to recover the state, county, and city taxes assessed against the defendant, for the year 1888, by the tax assessors of Rockland. The defendant concedes his liability to be taxed that year as an inhabitant and property owner in Rockland, but makes some objections to the mode of the assessment, which he claims should bar recovery in whole or in part.

1. The assessors of taxes did not make three separate valuations and assessments, one for each tax, state, county, and municipal, but made only one valution, and then, blending together the several sums to be levied for state, county, and municipal purposes, made one assessment for the whole. The defendant claims that there is no authority for such blending of the three taxes; that this combined tax, not being all for municipal purposes, does not belong to the city, or, in the language of the statute above cited, is not" due "to the city, and hence is not recoverable by the city.

We may concede that, strictly, the taxes assessed for state and county purposes do not belong and are not "due" to the city. Neither, strictly, do the taxes levied for city purposes belong to the city. Strictly, a municipality has no absolute right in municipal property, or municipal taxes. It holds municipal property, and levies, collects, and expends municipal taxes for public purposes only. While the municipality has, by authority of the legislature, considerable control over municipal taxes, it is not as owner, but rather as agent or trustee for the public. The public can at any time, through the legislature, take to itself the municipal property, and the proceeds of municipal taxation. It is true, as urged by the defendant, that at the time of this assessment the collector of taxes was required by statute to pay directly to the state and county treasurers the taxes assessed for state and county purposes, and warrants would issue from such treasurers directly against the collectors for any delinquency; nevertheless, the tax was levied by the state upon the municipality, and the latter was in the end responsible for its payment in full. The municipality was the agency through which state and county taxes were assessed and collected.

Viewing the municipality in the light of an agent or trustee of the public, all the taxes to be assessed and collected through its agency may be said to be "due" to it as such agent or trustee. The right of action against the delinquent inhabitant or property owner was given to the municipality to enable it to perform its duties as such agent or trustee. We think the state and county taxes assessed upon the municipality are within the purview of the statute granting this remedy.

But the defendant goes further, and insists that the blending of these taxes, as above described, being unauthorized by statute, vitiates the whole assessment, and that hence the city cannot recover that part of the tax assessed for municipal purposes.

We understand that just such a blending of the different taxes has been for years and is now almost, if not quite, universally practiced in the different municipalities of the state. Such a general and long-continued practice without objection, under a statute, goes far to settle the proper construction of the statute, there being, as in this case, no words of prohibition. A. construction the people themselves have placed upon a statute of their own making—a construction under which they have long acted without question—should not be disregarded or over turned by the court, unless, indeed, it is found to work a manifest injustice.

We do not see how this models unjust to the taxpayer. It does not Increase the relative valuation of his property, nor increase the amount of his tax. In answer to...