Inhabitants Or Northampton v. Commissioners of Hampshire County

• Decision Date: 20 October 1887
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF NORTHAMPTON v. COMMISSIONERS OF HAMPSHIRE CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

145 Mass. 108

13 N.E. 388

INHABITANTS OF NORTHAMPTON v. COMMISSIONERS OF HAMPSHIRE CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampshire.

October 20, 1887

COUNSEL

A.T. Crossley, for Inhabitants of Northampton.

The situs of the office, office-building, etc., and all the personal property upon which this tax was assessed, and which related to the business of the trustees of the Smith Charities, was in Northampton, and the tax was properly assessed by the assessors of Northampton, and the county commissioners erred in abating seven-eighths thereof. Greenfield v. County Com'rs, 135 Mass. 566, 568; Trustees Green Foundation v. City of Boston, 12 Cush. 54, 59, 60; St. Albans v. Car Co., 57 Vt. 68 80, 81. This is a tax upon the personal property of the corporation, and not an excise or duty on the privilege or franchise of the corporation. Com. v. Bank, 5 Allen, 428, 432; Inhabitants of Greenfield v. County Com'rs supra. "Taxation and protection are reciprocal. A chattel in a town in which it has no situs, and in which its owner does not reside, is not taxable for expenses of the town not actually or presumptively beneficial to the owner." Mills Co. v. Wentworth's Location, 60 N.H. 156, 157; State v. Express Co., Id. 219 251; Cooley, Tax'n, 121, and cases cited. Northampton is the only one of the eight towns which furnishes any protection to the property, or any part of the property included in this tax, and is also the only one in which any part of said property has any situs. Northampton is the only town of the eight towns named in which the will of Oliver Smith vests any pecuniary interest, legal or beneficial. Inhabitants of Northampton v. Smith, 11 Metc. 390, 396, 397.

So much of section 4, c. 96, Acts 1849, as says: "But, for the purposes of taxation, said funds shall be equally apportioned among the eight towns named in said will, to-wit, Northampton, Hadley, Amherst, Hatfield, Williamsburg, Whately, Deerfield, and Greenfield, or such of them as shall not have forfeited their rights therein; and said apportionment shall be made, and the assessors of each of said towns shall be notified of the same by the trustees provided for in said will, on or before the first day of May annually, and the portions of said funds thus assigned to said towns, respectively, may be assessed therein in all the taxes legally rated and assessed by said towns,"--is unconstitutional, within the meaning of part 2, c. 1, § 1, art. 4, Const.Mass. The provision is unreasonable, within the meaning of said article 4. It fixes a situs to the personal property of the corporation, contrary to general laws, and the one fixed by the will. It creates an arbitrary taxing district, and apportions the personal property of said corporation, for the purposes of taxation in equal parts among said towns, without regard to valuation; and the tax on the personal property of said corporation as assessed was not, and could not be, proportional and reasonable, within the meaning of said article. Dorgan v. City of Boston, 12 Allen, 223; Oliver v. Mills, 11 Allen, 268; Bank v. Apthorp, 12 Mass. 386; Com. v. Bank, 5 Allen, 428; Cheshire v. County Com'rs, 118 Mass. 386; Com. v. Manufacturing Co., 12 Allen, 298; Lowell v. Oliver, 8 Allen, 247; State v. Express Co., supra; Com. v. Savings Inst., 12 Allen, 312;Com. v. Gas-Light Co., Id. 75; Bank v. Hines, 3 Ohio St. 1, 15; Knowlton v. Supervisors, 9 Wis. 410, 421; Attorney General v. Winnebago Lake Co., 11 Wis. 35. See, also, Railroad Co. v. State, 60 N.H. 95, and cases cited. The legislature cannot designate, without reference to proportion, a certain class of persons on whom to impose a tax. Dorgan v. Boston, supra. This provision is also constitutional within the meaning of section 1, art. 14, of the amendments to Const. U.S., in that the county commissioners erred in deciding, as a matter of law, that the same was constitutional.

D. W. Bond and J. C. Hammond, for defendants.

The trustees of Smith Charities made an apportionment of the funds of the corporation among the eight towns named in the act of 1849, c. 96. It is not claimed by the petitioner that the corporation had any more taxable personal property than the $146,720 taxed by Northampton.

As to the constitutionality of the act of 1849. Whether a tax is reasonable is a question which cannot be revised by the court so long as the objects for which the tax is raised are within those for which public money may be raised by taxation. See Lowell v. Oliver, 8 Allen, 253. By the act of 1849, if the taxable property of the corporation is equally apportioned among the eight towns named, the rate of taxation in each town may be different from that of every other town. Because of this variation, the law providing for the apportionment among the eight towns is not unconstitutional, and a tax upon the property is proportional, within the meaning of the constitution. Institiution for Savings v. Boston, 101 Mass. 575, 586. If the provision of the constitution requiring taxes to be constitutional is to be construed to mean that the rate of taxation by which the public moneys are raised must be the same in every part of the commonwealth. It would seem to be within the provision of the constitution, if the rate of taxation in the town is the same as to all the taxable property of such town.

As to the apportionment under the act of 1849. If the act of 1849 is in force, and the apportionment under it was not the proper course for the trustees to pursue, then Northampton cannot complain because the commissioners abated a portion of the tax. If the property is not to be taxed by the eight towns as provided in the act, it cannot be taxed by Northampton, under the fifth clause of section 20, c. 11, Pub. St.

OPINION

DEVENS J.

The trustees of the Smith Charities were incorporated under the acts of 1849, c. 96. The fourth section of this act provided that no part of the funds of the corporation should, by the operation of the act, be exempted from taxation, and enacted that, "for the purposes of taxation, said funds shall be equally apportioned among the eight towns named in said will to-wit: Northampton, Hadley, Amherst, Hatfield, Willimasburg, Whately, Deerfield, and Greenfield, or such of them as shall not have forfeited their rights therein; and said appointment shall be made, and the assessors of each of said towns shall be notified of the same by the trustees provided for in said will, on or before the first day of May annually; and the portions of said funds thus assigned to said towns, respectively, may be assessed therein in all the taxes legally voted and assessed by said towns." The corporation made a correct apportionment (as appears by the answer of the respondents) of their taxable funds among the eight towns according to this section. The county commissioners have allowed an abatement of seven-eighths of the tax assessed by Northampton, which was upon the whole of these funds, and have, in effect, decided that Northampton was entitled to tax only one-eighth of them. This decision is in accordance with the...