Hardman v. Collector of Taxes of North Adams
| Decision Date | 02 January 1945 |
| Citation | 317 Mass. 439,58 N.E.2d 845 |
| Parties | JAMES A. HARDMAN, JUNIOR, v. COLLECTOR OF TAXES OF NORTH ADAMS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
September 19, 1944.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., QUA, DOLAN WILKINS, & SPALDING, JJ.
Public Record. Municipal Corporations, Officers and agents, Public records. Taxation, Collector of taxes, Assessors of taxes. North Adams. The provisions of Section 45 of the charter of North Adams, St. 1895, c.
148, being the last of a group of sections, beginning with Section 35, under that "every officer above named . . . shall keep a record of all official transactions, and such record shall be open to public inspection," did not apply to its collector of taxes, a collector of taxes being a public officer, and the only reference to the office in the charter previous to Section 45 being in the list of administrative offices in Section 34 designating a "city treasurer, who shall also be collector of taxes."
A tax list committed to the collector of taxes of a city by the assessors pursuant to G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 59, Sections 53 54, is not in the hands of the collector a public record as defined by c. 4, Section 7,
Twenty-sixth, which a citizen, taxpayer, and voter of the city has a right to inspect under c. 66, Section 10, enforceable by mandamus on the ground that he cannot otherwise get access to the information therein contained: Section 10 gives him a right to inspect the assessors' valuation list, of which the tax list is essentially a copy.
A citizen, taxpayer and voter of a city, who is not an official or other person designated in G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 60, Section 8, has no right under c. 4, Section 7, Twenty-sixth; c. 66, Section 10, to inspect the entries of payments of taxes made by the collector of taxes on the tax list committed to him by the assessors and in his cash book.
PETITION, filed in the Superior Court on November 6, 1943, for a writ of mandamus.
The case was heard by Burns, J. W. A. O'Hearn, for the petitioner.
S. E. Levine, City Solicitor, for the respondent.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus brought by a citizen taxpayer and voter of the city of North Adams to compel the respondent to permit him to inspect and examine the "commitment sheets, or tax ledger," and the daily cash book in the custody of the respondent as collector of taxes of the city. After hearing upon the petition and answer, the judge, finding the facts "to be substantially as alleged by the petitioner," denied the petition. The case was argued before us on the petitioner's exceptions to the denial of certain of his requests for rulings of law. Since the result will be the same in any event, we deal with the case as it has been argued before us without discussing questions of procedure.
The facts alleged in the petition and admitted by the respondent's answer may be summed up as follows: The respondent by virtue of his office as city treasurer is city collector of the city of North Adams under the provisions of Section 34, Title 6, of its charter, St. 1895, c. 148, as amended. As collector of taxes he has the custody of a number of loose sheets, known as commitment sheets and when assembled as the tax ledger. These sheets "contain a list of all owners of real estate, and the amount of taxes due from each taxpayer, as determined by the board of assessors," and are committed to the collector of taxes each year. He also has a daily cash book in which is entered each payment received by him as collector of taxes. The petitioner by a writing dated November 1, 1943, requested the respondent to permit him to inspect and examine the commitment sheets or tax ledger and also the daily cash book for the year 1943 but the request was denied by the respondent. At the close of the hearing the petitioner made certain requests for rulings which were denied by the judge. The only issue presented by these requests is whether the "tax list" (see G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 60, Sections 4, 6) committed to the collector by the assessors, together with the entries made by the collector thereon, and his "cash book" (see G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 60, Section 7) are public records which the petitioner is entitled as of right to inspect and examine.
The contention of the petitioner is that the tax list and cash book kept by the collector are public records open to public inspection within the meaning of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 66, Section 10, and within the meaning of Section 45 of the city charter, and that no limitation of this alleged right is imposed by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 60, Section 8. Section 45 of the city charter provides that "Every board, and every officer above-named not a member of a board, shall keep a record of all official transactions, and such record shall be open to public inspection." While it is true that the provisions of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 60, Section 8, were enacted before the special act granting the charter in question to the city, we are of opinion that the provision of Section 45 of the charter relied upon by the petitioner has no application to the office of city collector. That section applies only to "Every board, and every officer above-named not a member of a board." The section is included under [1] There is no reference in any of the sections under that title to the office of city collector. The only reference in the charter to the city collector, other than that in Section 46 fixing the salary of the "tax collector and treasurer" at a single sum, is in Section 34 under the title of administrative officers. Among them is named "a city treasurer, who shall also be collector of taxes." But the office of city treasurer and the office of city collector are nevertheless distinct offices, and it is settled that collectors of taxes are public officers having their duties defined by law, and that they are not agents of the towns or cities in the performance of their duties prescribed by the laws of the Commonwealth even though elected by the respective municipalities. Rossire v. Boston, 4 Allen, 57. Graton v. Cambridge, 250 Mass. 317 . A "statute is not to be deemed to repeal or supersede a prior statute in whole or in part in the absence of express words to that effect or of clear implication." Egan v. Mayor of Boston, 298 Mass. 448 , 450, and cases cited. Commonwealth v. Bloomberg, 302 Mass. 349 , 351. We therefore must look to the provisions of the General Laws in determining the questions presented for decision.
General Laws (Ter. Ed.) c. 4, Section 7, Twenty-sixth, provides as follows: "`Public records' shall mean any written or printed book or paper, any map or plan of the commonwealth, or of any county, city or town which is the property thereof, and in or on which any entry has been made or is required to be made by law, or which any officer or employee of the commonwealth or of a county, city or town has received or is required to receive for filing, and any book, paper, record or copy mentioned in sections five to eight, inclusive, and sixteen of chapter sixty-six, including public records made by photographic process as provided in section three of said chapter."
General Laws (Ter. Ed.) c. 66, Section 10, provides as follows:
These statutes as well as all the pertinent statutes relating to the same subject matter should be considered as a whole and, if possible, be so construed as to make them effectual pieces of legislation "in harmony with common sense and sound reason." Kilby Bank, petitioner, 23 Pick. 93, 94. Morrison v. Selectmen of Weymouth, 279 Mass.
486, 492. Tilton v. Haverhill, 311 Mass. 572 , 577, 578. Ring v. Woburn, 311 Mass. 679, 693. Therefore we must consider the very important provisions of G. L. (Ter Ed.) c. 60, Section 8, which provides specifically for the examination of the books, accounts and vouchers of collectors of taxes as...
To continue reading
Request your trial