Deane v. Hathaway

• Decision Date: 30 November 1883
• Citation: 136 Mass. 129
• Parties: Thomas H. Deane v. Guilford H. Hathaway, administrator
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

136 Mass. 129

Thomas H. Deane v. Guilford H. Hathaway, administrator

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 30, 1883

[Syllabus Material]

Bristol. Contract, by the collector of taxes of Somerset, to recover of the administrator of the estate of Joseph Marble certain taxes assessed to him as such administrator in 1882. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the defendant, to this court on appeal, upon agreed facts, in substance as follows:

Joseph Marble died in January, 1880, and the defendant was appointed administrator on March 6, 1880. There was a large amount of personal property belonging to the estate.

Soon after the appointment of the defendant as administrator, one William H. H. Dearden presented to him a claim of about $ 23,000, for services rendered for nineteen or twenty years to the intestate. This claim was disputed by the defendant, and suit was brought thereon by Dearden in February, 1882. The claim was finally compromised by the defendant, by authority of the Probate Court, for $ 13,100, which amount was paid to Dearden by the defendant.

George R. Dearden, as administrator of the estate of Mary R Dearden, presented to the defendant a claim for upwards of $ 7000. This included an amount alleged to be due on a certain note for $ 500 and interest amounting to upwards of $ 2000 and a bond in the penal sum of $ 1000, signed by the intestate, and payable to Mary R. Dearden, and other claims. This claim was finally settled also, by leave of the Probate Court, by the payment of about $ 3500 to George R. Dearden as administrator, in full for all demands by the estate represented by him against the estate of Joseph Marble.

In 1881, the defendant, as administrator of Joseph Marble's estate, rendered to the assessors a list, and deducted from the cash and securities $ 12,000, as due William H. H. Dearden and $ 3000, as due George R. Dearden, administrator. The assessors for that year assessed William H. H. Dearden for $ 12,000 on accounts, and George R. Dearden, administrator, for $ 3000 as a debt due the estate of Mary R. Dearden.

Afterwards, the assessors for 1882 abated the above assessments to William H. H. Dearden and George R. Dearden, administrator, and duly reassessed them to the defendant as administrator, and duly committed the same, in October, 1882, to the plaintiff, who was collector of taxes for the time being, for collection. Afterwards, the plaintiff made due demand on the defendant, before bringing suit, for payment of the tax so assessed, and the defendant declined to pay, on the ground that the deductions aforesaid were legally and properly made, and that he was not legally liable therefor.

The defendant made a return to the assessors in 1882, in which he called the amount due William H. H. Dearden $ 8000. The sum paid to George R. Dearden, administrator, in settlement, was paid in the fall of 1881. Nothing was paid by the defendant to William H. H. Dearden until February or March, 1883, when the amount agreed on, $ 13,100, was paid to him. The defendant, as administrator, offered to William H. H. Dearden $ 12,000 in settlement several times, and said to him that, when he was ready to accept it, he would get leave of the Probate Court to pay it. Dearden declined to accept it, claiming more. The defendant also offered to George R. Dearden, administrator, $ 3000 in settlement, and told him he would get permission of the Probate Court to pay it, if he would accept it; but he declined to take it. These offers were made many times before the defendant made his list to the assessors in 1881.

Neither the defendant, nor William H. H. Dearden, nor George R. Dearden, administrator, filed any sworn statement of his taxable property with the assessors for January, 1881. The Deardens severally applied in writing for an abatement of the taxes aforesaid, and the assessors, after due hearing, refused to abate either tax; and no appeal was taken by either of them from said decision.

The assessors for 1882 were an entirely new board from that of 1881. At the time of the settlement with William H. H. Dearden, suit was pending in his favor against the defendant to recover the amount claimed by him.

The tax...