Lawrence Print Works v. Lynch
| Decision Date | 29 January 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 3983.,3983. |
| Citation | 146 F.2d 996 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE PRINT WORKS, Inc., et al. v. LYNCH et al., Assessors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
George B. Rowlings and Tyler & Reynolds, all of Boston, Mass. (Joseph R. Kelley and Swiger, Chambers & Kelley, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
James P. Kane, of Lawrence, Mass., for appellees.
Before MAHONEY and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges, and PETERS, District Judge.
In this suit the plaintiffs, appellants, ask that the defendants, as members of the board of assessors of the City of Lawrence, Massachusetts, be required to specifically perform an agreement with the plaintiffs, alleged to have been made by the members of a previous board, to abate certain taxes for the years 1941 and 1942 upon real estate in Lawrence which the plaintiffs had negotiated to purchase and which they did purchase, allegedly in reliance upon said agreement.
The asserted jurisdiction of the District Court was based on diversity of citizenship, the amount in dispute being more than $3,000.
A motion to dismiss was filed alleging that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; that the suit was prematurely brought, and that the plaintiffs, having filed an appeal from the decision of the board of assessors refusing the abatement, had not exhausted the remedies afforded them by the state law. An answer was also filed denying the existence of the agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs and setting up various other defenses. The case was heard without a jury by the District Judge who found, as a fact, that there was no contract as claimed, deeming it unnecessary to consider other defenses.
A review of the record discloses no sufficient reason for reversing the judgment of the District Court based upon its factual conclusions, and the appeal would fail if for no other reason; but we feel that we should not ignore the question, implicit in the record, as to whether the case presented is one in which a federal court in equity should exercise its discretionary power to grant the extraordinary relief asked for, even assuming the agreement as claimed.
The plaintiffs claim to have acquired the right to an abatement of taxes by virtue of an oral agreement with the assessors approved by the tax commissioner of Massachusetts. The claim was rejected and the right to abatement denied by the defendant board of assessors. It is apparent that the relief sought in this suit, — a compulsory reversal by the assessors of their action in laying taxes on the property of the plaintiffs without an abatement, — is a direct interference with the fiscal affairs of the state, which has been strongly condemned by the Supreme Court. Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U.S. 521, 525, 52 S.Ct. 217, 76 L.Ed. 447; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U.S. 176, 55 S.Ct. 380, 79 L.Ed. 841, 96 A.L.R. 1166; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 1073, 87 L.Ed. 1407.
The opinion in the Huffman case, decided in 1943, contains the following quotation from Matthews v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mandel v. Hutchinson
...(4th Cir. 1947); a suit to require a board of assessors to specifically perform an agreement to abate taxes, Lawrence Print Works, Inc. v. Lynch, 146 F.2d 996 (1st Cir. 1945); and a suit by a city in one State against the corporations commissioner of another State for a declaration of tax a......
-
Application of State of New Jersey
...is perhaps the most recent re-enunciation of the principles governing federal interference with state tax matters, Lawrence Print Works v. Lynch, 1 Cir., 146 F.2d 996. There Judge Peters says at page 997 of 146 "The plaintiffs claim to have acquired the right to an abatement of taxes by vir......
-
Forbes & Wallace, Inc. v. City of Springfield
...tax collector. See e.g., G.L. c. 58, § 8. See also Lawrence Print Works v. Lynch, 52 F.Supp. 615, 616-617 (D.Mass.1943), affd., 146 F.2d 996 (1st Cir.1945); Nichols, Taxation in Massachusetts, supra, at 364-366; 16 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 44.129 (3d ed. rev. 5. Forbes argues th......
-
Everlasting Development Corp. v. Sol Luis Descartes
...or collection of such tax, Nashville, C. & St.L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 261-262, 53 S.Ct. 345, 77 L.Ed. 730; Lawrence Print Works, Inc. v. Lynch, 1 Cir., 146 F.2d 996; and that, in the instant suit, while plaintiffs pray a declaration that they are entitled to tax exemption and that ......