Feehan v. Trefry
| Citation | 129 N.E. 292,237 Mass. 169 |
| Parties | FEEHAN v. TREFRY, Tax Com'r. |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1921 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Sessex County; Frederick Lawton, Judge.
Proceeding for abatement of income taxes by Charles Feehan against William D. T. Trefry, Tax Commissioner. From order dismissing the complaint, complainant appeals. Order affirmed.John J. Ryan and James P. Cleary, both of Haverhill, for complainant.
J. Weston Allen, Atty. Gen., and Arthur E. Seagrave, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The complainant, representing that he was an inhabitant and resident of Milford, in the state of Connecticut, brought this proceeding against the tax commissioner of the commonwealth to abate the taxes on income assessed to him on September 1, 1918, as an inhabitant of this commonwealth. St. 1916, c. 269, § 5. In the superior court it was found that the complainant was born in Milford, Conn., and formerly had his domicile there, but prior to the time in question had changed his domicile from Milford to Haverhill, in this commonwealth, and it was ordered that the complaint be dismissed.
The trial judge found that the complainant is a traveling commercial agent; that his parents and his sister live in Milford; that in his father's house a bedroom and living room are furnished with the complainant's furniture; and that once in eight weeks, from Wednesday till Monday, he occupies these rooms. He has voted in Milford and nowhere else. He pays taxes there and registered for the military census in Connecticut. In 1916 Mrs. Feehan, the complainant's wife, took charge of her father's shoe manufacturing business in Haverhill. At this time the Feehans transferred their furniture from the home of Mrs. Feehan's father to the house of her aunt on Macon avenue, Haverhill, and took charge of it, paying all the bills and providing a home for the aunt, who charged them no rent. From that time Mrs. Feehan has been in Milford but parts of two days, and Feehan is in Haverhill seven days in eight weeks, and week-ends, living with his wife on Macon avenue. During the summer months, he passes the weekends at his summer home in New Hampshire, except when at Milford as previously stated. During the past few years he has spent about ‘twenty-two or twenty-three weeks in Massachusetts, six or seven in Connecticut, eleven in New Hampshire, eight to twelve in Rhode Island, and from one to three in New York in each year.’ He is in Haverhill more than in any other place. ‘He and his wife have a common pocketbook from which household expenses are defrayed,’ and during the last four years Feehan has had no definite intention of making any change in his manner of living. The judge also found that, while no question is made of the complainant's sincerity in stating that he at no time intended to change his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Texas v. State of Florida
...of Trowbridge, 266 N.Y. 283, 292, 194 N.E. 756; and they are of slight weight when they conflict with the fact. Feehan v. Tax Com'r, 237 Mass. 169, 171, 129 N.E. 292; Dorrance's Estate, 309 Pa. 151, 163 A. 303. This is the more so where, as here, decedent's declarations are shown to have be......
-
Tuelle v. Flint
...246 Mass. 139, 144, 140 N. E. 803. The ascertainment of the domicil of a person is mainly a question of fact. Feehan v. Tax Commissioner, 237 Mass. 169, 171, 129 N. E. 292;Hutchins v. Browne, 253 Mass. 55, 57, 147 N. E. 899;Hayes v. Hayes, 256 Mass. 97, 152 N. E. 91. General principles gove......
-
Kennedy v. Simmons
... ... time of his death, was plainly wrong. White v ... Stowell, 229 Mass. 594 ... Feehan v. Tax ... Commissioner, 237 Mass. 169 ... Hutchins v ... Browne, 253 Mass. 55 ... White v. Loftus, 275 ... Mass. 559 ... Tuells v. Flint, 283 Mass ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Davis
...Pickering v. Cambridge, 144 Mass. 244, 245, 10 N. E. 827, 829;Abington v. North Bridgewater, 23 Pick. 170;Feehan v. Tax Commissioner, 237 Mass. 169, 171, 129 N. E. 292. It was for the jury to determine in the case at bar whether all the facts as they found them to be manifested a real inten......