Grout v. Johnson
| Citation | 73 Vt. 268,50 A. 1059 |
| Parties | GROUT v. JOHNSON. |
| Decision Date | 05 August 1901 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Windham county court; Start, Judge.
Action by Reuben B. Grout against Fred Johnson. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff brings exceptions. Affirmed.
Argued before TAFT, C. J., and ROWELL, TYLER, MUNSON, WATSON, and STAFFORD, JJ.
Waterman & Martin, for plaintiff.
O. e. Butterfield, for defendant.
TYLER, J. Trespass for taking certain personal property which was distrained and sold by the defendant, as collector of taxes of the town of Somerset, to enforce the collection of certain taxes assessed against the plaintiff in that town in the year 1899, the legality of which assessment he denied. The agreed statement of facts presents two questions: (1) In respect to the validity of the quadrennial appraisal of 1898; and (2) as to the legality of the grand list of the year 1899, into which that appraisal was carried.
1. V. S. § 387, required that quadrennial appraisals should be returned to the town clerk's office on the first Tuesday In July, which in the year 1898 was the 5th day of the month, whereas it was returned on July 7th. It was returned in time so that an appeal might have been taken, but this fact alone does not render the list valid. The statute gives no latitude to the listers in respect to the time when they shall return the quadrennial appraisal. No discretion is given them to use any part of the three days allowed taxpayers in which to appeal, and it is not a sufficient answer for the defendant that the taxpayers had ample time to take appeals after the list was returned. The statute gave them the three days to inspect and decide whether or not to take appeals. According to the reasoning of the court in Bellows v. Weeks, 41 Vt. 590, in respect to the authority of the listers over the grand list of a town after they have deposited it with the town clerk, the authority and control of the listers of Somerset over this quadrennial appraisal terminated with the 5th day of July, 1898, and after that they had no legal right to return it. Willard v. Pike, 59 Vt. 202, 9 Atl. 907, and cases cited in opinion. It was held in Smith v. Hard, 59 Vt 13, 8 Atl. 317, that the statute which requires the listers to arrange in alphabetical order the personal lists of taxpayers, and lodge the same in the town clerk's office on or before April 25th for the inspection of taxpayers, was mandatory, and not a directory statute; and certainly no reason could be given for holding V. S. § 387, merely directory. Ayers v. Moulton, 51 Vt. 115. In Meacham v. Town of Newport, 70 Vt. 264, 40 Atl. 729, the decision did not turn upon the mere fact that the list was returned too late for the plaintiff to take an appeal, though the fact appeared in the case. The quadrennial appraisal was held invalid by reason of the listers' noncompliance with the statute. It was held invalid upon two grounds: (1) That it was not sworn to before a proper officer; and (2) that it was not seasonably completed and returned to the town clerk's office. For the same reason this quadrennial list must be held invalid.
2. The legislature at the session of 1898 passed an act declaring the quadrennial appraisal in question legal and valid, and that the failure of the listers to lodge it in the town clerk's office within the time prescribed by law should in no manner affect its validity or legality, or that of the grand list arising from it. The act also gave persons aggrieved by the appraisal 20 days from the passage of the act in which to take appeals. Therefore the second question is whether this act was within the scope of legislative authority. A holding that it was beyond the power of the legislature to validate the appraisal and make the grand list of 1899 a legal basis for taxation would release the plaintiff from the constitutional duty to contribute his proportion toward supporting the laws, and the grand list for that year would be void. Therefore the validating act should be upheld unless it is unconstitutional, or deprives the plaintiff of a legal right. The power of the legislature in this respect is not limited to mere defects of form in thequadrennial appraisal, in the grand list, or in the tax bill. Judge Cooley gives quite a long list of legislative acts declaring certain tax rolls valid and effectual notwithstanding substantial irregularities and imperfections, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richford Savings Bank & Trust Company v. Thomas
... ... a number of cases upon the power of the Legislature to ... validate quadrennial appraisals and grand lists, but we need ... refer to only Grout v. Johnson, 73 Vt. 268, ... [17 A.2d 242] ... 50 A. 1059, where [111 Vt. 399] some of the other cases are ... cited. This cases quotes the ... ...
-
Town of Williamstown v. Williamstown Co., Inc.
...732), which we have held must be complied with or the document will be invalid. Meacham v. Newport, 70 Vt. 264, 40 A. 729; Grout v. Johnson, 73 Vt. 268, 50 A. 1059. That other requirements of G. L. 784, are mandatory, see Smith v. Hard, 59 Vt. 13, 8 A. 317; where the object of the abstract ......
-
Richford Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Thomas, 550.
... ... Grout v. Johnson, 73 ... 17 A.2d 242 ... Vt. 268, 50 A. 1059, 1060, where some of the other cases are cited. This case quotes the following rule laid down ... ...
-
Godfrey v. Bennington Water Co.
...the Legislature could not, in the first instance, nor by a curative statute, deprive a taxpayer of it. Bartlett v. Wilson, supra; Grout v. Johnson, 73 Vt. 268. 50 Atl. Judgment affirmed. ...