Inhabitants of Greenville v. Blair

• Decision Date: 19 November 1908
• Citation: 72 A. 177,104 Me. 444
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF GREENVILLE v. BLAIR.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

72 A. 177

104 Me. 444

INHABITANTS OF GREENVILLE

v. BLAIR.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 19, 1908.

(Official.)

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Piscataquis County.

Action of debt by the Inhabitants of Greenville against Lyman Blair. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Action of debt to recover certain taxes assessed in 1905 against the defendant as an inhabitant of the plaintiff town. Plea, the general issue, and also a brief statement as follows:

"And for brief statement defendant further says no tax was ever legally assessed by the assessors of the town of Greenville for the year 1905 against said Lyman Blair. The defendant did not have $3,000 at interest for which he was liable to be assessed in the town of Greenville as of the 1st day of April, 1905."

Tried at the September term, 1907, Supreme Judicial Court, Piscataquis county. At the conclusion of the evidence, the presiding justice directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff town for the amount of the tax, with interest from the date of the writ, and the jury thereupon returned such verdict for $193.01.

The defendant excepted to the order directing the verdict, and also excepted to several rulings made during the trial.

The case appears in the opinion.

Argued before EMERY, C. J., and PEA-BODY, WHITEHOUSE, SAVAGE, and BIRD, JJ.

P. H. Gillin and Aubrey L. Fletcher, for plaintiff. Hudson & Hudson and J. B. & F. C. Peaks, for defendant.

EMERY, C. J. This is an action of debt to recover the state, county, and town tax of 1905, alleged to have been duly assessed against the defendant as an inhabitant of the plaintiff town. The presiding justice excluded some evidence offered by the defense, and admitted some evidence against the defendant's objection. After the evidence was all In, the presiding justice directed a verdict for the plaintiff. To this ruling and some rulings on the evidence the defendant excepted.

This not being a case where the defendant's person or property is levied upon by direct warrant from the assessors, but being, instead, an action for the tax, the action will not be defeated by any mere irregularities in the election of assessors or collector, or in the assessment itself, but only by such omissions or defects as go to the jurisdiction of the assessors, or deprive the defendant of some substantial right, or by some omission of an essential prerequisite to the bringing of the action.

The defendant argued the following points only:

1. The record of the March, 1905, town meeting of Greenville, as to choice of collector of taxes, is as follows: "Ninth. Voted that the clerk be instructed to cast a vote for Aubrey L. Fletcher for tax collector in the town of Greenville for the ensuing year." It further appears that Aubrey L. Fletcher was duly sworn as collector of taxes, and gave bond as such and entered upon the duties of that office. The assessment of that year and a collection warrant therefor were issued to him by the assessors.

The defendant contends that Mr. Fletcher was not chosen "by ballot," and therefore was not a legal collector. But, if not regularly elected, he was the choice of the town, and was de facto collector of taxes. The irregularity in his election, if any, does not affect the validity of the assessment of the tax, nor the obligation of the defendant to pay it. Even if he could for that reason lawfully refuse to...