Inhabitants of Springfield v. Butterfield

Decision Date26 November 1903
Citation98 Me. 155,56 A. 581
PartiesINHABITANTS OF SPRINGFIELD v. BUTTERFIELD.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

(Official.)

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Penobscot County.

Action by the Inhabitants of Springfield against Lucius Butterfield to recover a tax. Case reported. Judgment for defendant.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, STROUT, SAVAGE, POWERS, and SPEAR, JJ.

P. H. Gillin and T. B. Towle, for plaintiff.

M. Laughlin, for defendant.

SAVAGE, J. Action of debt for taxes assessed in the year 1900. The only defense set up is that one of the assessors of the plaintiff town for that year was ineligible to the office of assessor, and hence that, although regularly elected and sworn, he was only an assessor de facto, and not de jure. Upon this premise, the defendant contends that the assessment was void. To this the plaintiff replies that it is a general rule that the acts of an officer de facto are valid when they concern the public or the rights of third persons, and cannot be indirectly called in question in a suit in which said officer is not a party, and that the right of the officer can only be questioned in a suit against him; and, further, that the question whether a person exercising the office de facto is an officer de jure cannot be settled in proceedings between third parties—citing Hooper v. Goodwin, 48 Me. 79.

It appears that, notwithstanding the provisions of Rev. St. 1883, c. 3, § 12, as amended by Pub. Laws 1885, p. 280, c. 335, that "treasurers and collectors of towns shall not be selectmen or assessors, until they have completed their duties as treasurers and collectors and had a final settlement with the town," the plaintiff town did, at the annual meeting in 1900, elect as one of the selectmen and assessors a person who, in 1898. had been elected collector of taxes, and had qualified and acted as such, and who at the time of his election as selectman and assessor had not had a final settlement with the town as collector of taxes. Such an election is expressly prohibited by the statute, and is void. Spear v. Robinson, 29 Me. 531; 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, § 196; 23 Am. & Eng. Encyclopaedia of Law (2d Ed.) 338. Such a collector is ineligible to the office of selectman or assessor, and, although he may have been formally elected and may have been regularly sworn, and may have acted as assessor, he was at most an assessor de facto, and not de jure.

We must therefore decide whether a tax assessed by a board of assessors, one of whom is an assessor de facto only, is valid, and collectible in a suit by the town. The general rule respecting the validity of the acts of de facto officers undoubtedly is as stated and claimed by the plaintiff. Such acts are, in general, valid, when they concern the public and the rights of third parties, and cannot be called in question in a suit between third parties. But they may be called in question when the de facto officer is a party to the suit, and seeks to justify or maintain his right by virtue of an illegal appointment or election.

And it may well be questioned whether, in an action by a town to recover taxes assessed by an ineligible assessor, it can shelter itself behind the general rule as stated. Dresden v. Goud, 75 Me. 298. The town illegally elected the assessor de facto. The town's right to recover depends upon giving effect to its own illegal act as if it were legal. Although an assessor is a public officer, and not an agent of the town, yet he acts solely for the town in its municipal capacity. Although the assessor assesses state and county taxes, neither the state nor the county is pecuniarily interested in the performance of his duties, for the state and county look to the town for their respective taxes, whether assessed and collected or not, and the town looks to the individual taxpayers, and collects if it can. The rights of the public are not concerned, except as to that part of the public which the town represents or is. The proposition is not whether the acts of such a de facto officer may bind the town, as undoubtedly they may (Opinion of the Court, 70 Me. 565), but whether they bind a third party. No third party, unless the town be a third party, sets up any right under the acts of the de facto assessor. On the contrary, the defendant assails them, and says they were to his wrong and injury. And as held in Dresden v. Goud, 75 Me. 298, the defendant is not a third party within the meaning of the rule, and the suit is not a collateral one, but is a direct impeachment of the proceedings. If it be true that an offending town may shield itself behind the rule giving validity to the acts of officers de facto, it follows as a practical result that a town may willfully violate the express and salutary provisions of the statute in question with impunity; for although individuals might, by appropriate proceedings, inquire by what warrant the officer holds his office, the expense and delay attending such proceedings would be prohibitory in ordinary cases. But it is not necessary to decide the question in the general form presented. Nor is it necessary to collate the decisions in other jurisdictions touching the assessment of taxes. Such decisions are not all in harmony with one another. Many hold that an assessment of taxes by a de facto assessor is valid, and cannot be questioned in a suit for the taxes by the town. Nevertheles...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • The State ex rel. McAllister v. Dunn
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 15 février 1919
    ... ... Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 102; Sutherland on Statutory ... Construction, par. 369; Springfield v. Butterfield, 98 Me ...          Edward ... W. Foristel and Wells Blodgett Priest for ... ...
  • State ex rel. Farris v. Roach
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 26 novembre 1912
    ... ... 601; ... Carroll v. Green, 148 Ind. 362; Roane v ... Matthews, 75 Miss. 94; Springfield v ... Butterfield, 98 Me. 155; 29 Cyc. 1376; State ex rel. v ... Breuer, 235 Mo. 240 ... ...
  • State ex inf. Major v. Breuer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 7 juin 1911
    ...Farlea v. Farish, 160 Ala. 230; Taylor v. Sullivan, 45 Minn. 309; Brady v. How, 50 Miss. 626; Hall v. Ty., 2 Wash. Ty. 147; Springfield v. Butterfield, 98 Me. 155. Person entitled to vote or be voted for unless he has paid his taxes. Roone v. Matthews, 75 Miss. 94. Officer actually in defau......
  • Rich Mfg. Co. v. Petty
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 19 juin 1950
    ...cannot assess a valid tax.’ The cases plaintiff cites in support of its argument for the ‘exception’ are Inhabitants of Springfield v. Butterfield, 98 Me. 155, 56 A. 581, and Inhabitants of Otisfield v. Board of Scribner, 129 Me. 311, 151 A. 670. These early Maine cases are the cases cited ......
  • 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