Inhabitants of Charleston v. Lawry

Decision Date23 February 1897
Citation89 Me. 582,36 A. 1103
PartiesINHABITANTS OF CHARLESTON v. LAWRY.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Penobscot county.

Action by the inhabitants of Charleston against Stillman Lawry. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Overruled.

Ira W. Davis, for plaintiff.

C. H. Bartlett, H. P. Haynes, L. B. Waldron, and P. H. Gillin, for defendant,

FOSTER, J. This is an action brought in the name of the inhabitants of a town to recover a tax, amounting in the whole to $3.78, assessed against the defendant for the year 1895, under section 175, c. 6, Rev. St.

It comes before this court on exceptions to the ruling of the justice presiding in directing a verdict for the plaintiff upon the evidence introduced, the defense offering no evidence at the trial.

The defense relied upon is that the plaintiff failed to make out a case, and that there was no evidence to show that the defendant was an inhabitant of the plaintiff town at the required time; no title or proper description to the real estate taxed; no legal commitment to the collector, inasmuch as there was no description of the real estate in his said commitment corresponding with that contained in the record of the lists of assessment; and, finally, that there was no proper authority to bring the suit in the name of the inhabitants of the town.

We think these objections are untenable, and that the ruling of the justice presiding was correct.

This is not a proceeding wherein a forfeiture is sought to be enforced, but a suit at law for the recovery of unpaid taxes. Much greater particularity and precision are required in the former than in the latter; and it has been held that the stringent rules which have been applied in testing the validity of arrests and sales of property for unpaid taxes are not applicable where the remedy sought is by an ordinary suit at law to collect unpaid taxes. Cressey v. Parks, 76 Me. 532; City of Rockland v. Ulmer, 8-1 Me. 503, 24 Atl. 949; Id., 87 Me. 357, 32 Atl. 972. As was said in Cressey v. Parks, where the distinction is properly made between collecting taxes by suit and proceedings to enforce a forfeiture: "To prevent forfeitures, strict constructions are not unreasonable.

But, where forfeitures are not involved, proceedings for the collection of taxes should be construed practically and liberally."

From an examination of the case, we are satisfied that there was evidence establishing the residence of the defendant in the plaintiff town at the time when the tax was assessed, and, moreover, that the title and description of the real estate were sufficient to sustain a proceeding of this nature. Nor is it necessary as a prerequisite to the validity of the tax that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State ex rel. Attorney General v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1929
    ... ... The reasons ... therefor are well stated in the case of Inhabitants of ... Cape Elizabeth v. Boyd, 86 Me. 317, 29 A. 1062, ... where the court used this language: ...          See ... also Inhabitants v. Lawry, 89 Me. 582, 36 ... A. 1103. In Ricker v. Brooks, 155 Mass ... 400, 29 N.E. 534, it was said: ... ...
  • State v. Standard Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1929
    ...Orono v. Emery, 86 Me. 366, 29 A. 1095. Good pleading requires that it should be alleged with time and place." See, also, Inhabitants v. Lawry, 89 Me. 582, 36 A. 1103. In Ricker v. Brooks, 155 Mass. 400, 29 N. E. 534, it was "The demurrer in this case was rightly sustained. "The bill, thoug......
  • Inhabitants of Town of Milo v. Milo Water Co.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1932
    ...forfeitures are not involved, proceedings for the collection of taxes should be construed practically and liberally.*" Charleston v. Lawry, 89 Me. 582, 36 A. 1103. So we hold that under proper construction and application of statutes applicable the record of assessment is The second objecti......
  • City of Old Town v. Robbins
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • August 3, 1936
    ...(7 Vroom) 188, 191. To prevent forfeitures, strict constructions are not unreasonable. Cressey v. Parks, 76 Me. 532; Charleston v. Lawry, 89 Me. 582, 36 A. 1103; Baker v. Webber, 102 Me. 414, 67 A. 144; Milo v. Water Company, 131 Me. 372, 163 A. The purchaser at a tax sale has no title till......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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