Harrington v. Glidden

Decision Date04 September 1901
PartiesHARRINGTON v. GLIDDEN.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

179 Mass. 486
61 N.E. 54

HARRINGTON
v.
GLIDDEN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Sept. 4, 1901.


Exceptions from superior court, Middlesex county; John H. Hardy, Judge.

Action by one Harrington, as collector of taxes, against one Glidden. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings exceptions. Overruled.


Geo. [179 Mass. 490]F. Richardson and F. W. Qua, for plaintiff.

Shepard, Stebbins & Storer and Burke & Corbett, for defendant.


HAMMOND, J.

In this action the plaintiff, as collector, seeks to recover a tax assessed upon the defendant, as trustee. It is contended by the defendant that, even if he was a trustee, such was the nature and location of the property, and his relation to it, that he was not taxable as such. The first question is whether this ground of the defense is open to the defendant in this action. The assessment and collection of taxes is regulated by statute. The assessors are public officers, and, while their duties are of a quasi judicial nature, their jurisdiction is limited, based sometimes upon the residence of the person assessed, or of some other person interested in the property, and sometimes upon the situation of the property. Without reciting in detail the statutes, it is sufficient to say that they provide that each person may bring in a sworn list of the personal property for which he in any capacity should be taxed, and this list is to be received by the assessors as true, except as to valuation, unless he, being required thereto by the assessors, refuses to answer on oath all necessary inquiries as to the nature and amount of his property. In case a person does not bring in a list, the assessors shall ascertain, as nearly as possible, his taxable property, and ‘make an estimate thereof at its just value, according to their best information and belief,’ and ‘such estimate shall be conclusive,’

[61 N.E. 55]

except in certain cases not here material. Pub. St. c. 11, §§ 38-42. Any person aggrieved by an assessment may apply for an [179 Mass. 491]abatement to the assessors, and, by appeal from their decision, to the county commissioners or superior court, and on questions of law may reach this court; but no person shall have an abatement unless he files a list, as above provided. Id. §§ 69-72; St. 1890, c. 127. This plain, adequate, and complete remedy for the correction of errors, whether of law or fact, is the only one provided by our statutes; and when the assessors are acting within their jurisdiction, it must be regarded as exclusive, in accordance with the well-known rule that ‘when a new right is created by statute, which at the same time provides a remedy for any infringement of it, that remedy must be pursued.’ Osborne v. Danvers, 6 Pick. 98, 99. But when the assessors are acting outside their jurisdiction, their acts are absolutely void. Where, for instance, the tax ordered is illegal because for a purpose not authorized by law, the assessment is void. The assessors have no jurisdiction. Bangs v. Snow, 1 Mass...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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