Cressey v. Parks

Decision Date19 December 1884
Citation76 Me. 532
PartiesWARREN CRESSEY v. JOSEPH PARKS.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

ON REPORT.

The opinion states the case.

Davis and Bailey, for the plaintiff.

Without reviewing the cases where similar questions have been affirmatively decided we think in the case, Carpenter v Dresser, 72 Me. 380, PETERS, J., states the principle fairly upon which this claim is made, and with sufficient fullness for the purposes of this argument. He says: " It has been held that an officer, liable as a trespasser for irregularly distraining goods for taxes may be entitled to have the amount of the taxes deducted from the damages recoverable against him, the taxes being regarded as cancelled and paid. It is for the owner's benefit in such cases that the tax be regarded as paid, and other cases founded upon the same principle may be found. But in all of them the doctrine is founded upon the idea that the deduction or mitigation is allowed with the implied assent of the owner."

It is difficult to perceive of any logical argument in support of this theory. It seems to be rather an equitable presumption to modify the rigor of an application of strict legal principles.

As directly opposed to this and more analogous to legal cause and effect is the position of the Vermont court upon the same question.

The case of Hall v. Ray, 40 Vt. 576, was that of an officer proceeding irregularly in the sale of chattels on execution whereby he became a trespasser, and having applied the proceeds on the execution claimed to have the amount allowed him in reduction of the damages. He was however charged with the full value of the goods taken, and the court say, pp. 579-80: " In order to entitle him to apply the property in payment of that judgment, it was necessary for him to make a legal sale of it. He was not the plaintiff's agent. He was the agent and officer of the law proceeding in invitum against the plaintiffs' right to hold and dispose of his own. He could only affect and bind the plaintiff by disposing and applying the proceeds of the property by pursuing the course presented by the law. Except so far as the law assumes to sell and apply one's property in payment of his debts, it is his own right to exercise his own judgment and act upon his own preferences and adopt his own modes in that respect."

But in any event to avail defendant, we think it should appear that he has paid the money to the town, and has it no longer under his control, that the tax has been paid to the town in fact. The report is silent on this point.

An examination of the copy of assessments on page three of the report shows no valid assessments of the taxes in controversy. There is no tax on real estate because no real estate is described. Harpswell v. Orr, 69 Me. 333; Vassalboro v. Nowell, 75 Maine 242.

Barker, Vose and Barker, and A. L. Simpson, for the defendant.

PETERS, C. J.

The defendant, a collector, seized the plaintiff's hay for non-payment of taxes and sold it at auction. All of the proceedings were regular excepting that the collector held the hay one day too long before selling. For this mistake the plaintiff is to recover against him the full value of the hay in the present action...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Inhabitants of Town of Owls Head v. Dodge
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1956
    ...'When forfeitures are not involved, proceedings for the collection of taxes should be construed practically and liberally.' Cressey v. Parks, 76 Me. 532; Inhabitants of Norridgewock v. Walker, 71 Me. 181; Bath v. Whitmore, 79 Me. 182, 9 A. 119. In Inhabitants of Athens v. Whittier, 122 Me. ......
  • Thompson v. Gaudette
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1952
    ...punctiliously complied with.' Brown v. Veazie, 25 Me. 359. "To prevent forfeitures strict constructions are not unreasonable.' Cressey v. Parks, 76 Me. 532. "It is deemed essential to the validity of a tax sale of lands that there shall be a strict compliance with all the directions of the ......
  • Inhabitants of Town of Milo v. Milo Water Co.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1932
    ...of property for unpaid taxes, are not applicable where the remedy sought is by an ordinary suit at law to collect unpaid taxes. Cressey v. Parks, 76 Me. 532; Rockland v. Ulmer, 84 Me. 503, 24 A. 949; Rockland v. Ulmer, 87 Me. 357, 32 A. 972. As was said in Cressey v. Parks, where the distin......
  • City of Old Town v. Robbins
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • August 3, 1936
    ...power. Baxter v. Jersey City, 36 N.J.Law (7 Vroom) 188, 191. To prevent forfeitures, strict constructions are not unreasonable. Cressey v. Parks, 76 Me. 532; Charleston v. Lawry, 89 Me. 582, 36 A. 1103; Baker v. Webber, 102 Me. 414, 67 A. 144; Milo v. Water Company, 131 Me. 372, 163 A. The ......
  • 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