Jordan v. Hopkins
| Decision Date | 12 December 1892 |
| Citation | 27 A. 91,85 Me. 159 |
| Parties | JORDAN, Tax Collector, v. HOPKINS. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Hancock county.
Action by George Jordan, tax collector, against Joseph J. Hopkins, to recover certain taxes assessed to defendant. Heard on report. Judgment of nonsuit
F. L. Mason, for plaintiff.
Wiswell & King, for defendant.
The report of the evidence in this action, brought in the name of the collector of the town of Otis to recover certain taxes assessed in 1886 against the defendant, establishes the following facts: At the annual town meeting of Otis in March, 1886, Willard D. Fogg, Frank W. Fogg, and Benjamin Jordan were chosen selectmen. Thereupon it was voted that the selectmen be also assessors and overseers of the poor. The clerk's record declares in general terms that all the officers chosen at the meeting were sworn. By oral evidence it is proved that the manner of swearing in the officers was that they stood together before the town clerk, who administered the oath as follows: "You, gentlemen, having been chosen in as officers of this town, you solemnly swear that you will perform all the duties required in your special offices to the best of your ability and judgment and according to the law, so help you God."
At some time after this, Benjamin Jordan resigned his offices on account of his removal from town, and at a town meeting holden on April 27, 1886, John G. Remick was chosen selectman in his place, and he was, on April 30th, sworn as a selectman only. At this meeting no one was by any vote chosen assessor. The assessment made by the assessors, the commitment, and record are signed by the two Foggs alone, but the warrant to the collector is signed by them and also by Remick, the newly-elected selectman. All the papers exhibited in evidence of the assessment bear the date of May 12, 1886.
It is admitted that Remick, who was not sworn as assessor, could not legally act in that capacity, and it is so settled by the case of Dresden v. Goud, 75 Me. 298. But the plaintiff contends that, although Remick was not sworn as an assessor, the original board were legally sworn as assessors, and that two of such board could legally assess the taxes. The plaintiff further argues that the case of Williamsburg v. Lord, 51 Me. 599, does not militate against this position, because that was a case of an alleged forfeiture, and that the other case relied on by the defendants (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Inhabitants of Town of Warren v. Norwood
...elect a board of four if it desires. Whether or not the majority of a board may legally assess taxes, a question raised in Jordan v. Hopkins, 85 Me. 159, 27 A. 91, but not decided because participation by a selectman who had not been sworn as an assessor was held to invalidate the assessmen......
-
Inhabitants of Town of Cushing v. McKay Radio & Tel. Co.
...889, 892; Greenville v. Blair, 104 Me. 444, 72 A. 177. Plaintiff establishes its case, in regard to the taxes. The case of Jordan v. Hopkins, 85 Me. 159, 27 A. 91, where but two assessors were legally chosen and sworn, the third person participating in the assessment having been chosen and ......
-
Inhabitants of Verona v. Bridges
...the tax; that Whitmore, Bassett, and Heath were elected assessors, and Whitmore, Bassett and Delano assessed the tax. Jordan v. Hopkins, 85 Me. 159 27 Atl. 91; Machiasport v. Small, 77 Me. 109. This seeming defect in the assessment of the tax is not available to the defendant under his bill......
- Oliver v. Bailey