Mills v. Bd. of Assessors of City of Fall River
| Decision Date | 28 May 1930 |
| Citation | 271 Mass. 358,171 N.E. 434 |
| Parties | SHAWMUT MILLS v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF CITY OF FALL RIVER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Bristol County.
Petition for writ of mandamus by the Shawmut Mills against the Board of Assessors of the City of Fall River. On respondent's exceptions to order directing issuance of writ.
Exceptions overruled.
J. F. Doherty, of Boston, for petitioner.
Joseph L. Hurley, Corp. Counsel, of Fall River, for respondent.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents, as assessors of Fall River, to consider and act upon two applications of the petitioner for an abatement of taxes assessed upon it for the years 1927 and 1928. The case was referred to an auditor and thereafter a hearing was had upon his report by a justice of this court, who ordered the writ to issue as prayed for. The respondents excepted to the order so entered and to the denial of certain requests for rulings.
The auditor made the following findings: The petitioner for the years 1927 and 1928 seasonably filed with the assessors lists of its property, real and personal, in the form prescribed by law. The present assessors contend that no applications for abatement of said taxes were ever legally made to them for the years in question, and they refuse to act upon the issue of an abatement of such taxes. The petitioner never made written applications to said assessors for abatement of said taxes, but did make oral applications therefor. As to the tax assessed for the year 1927, it was paid under protest by check dated October 29, 1927. On or about February 27, 1928, one Moore, chairman of the board of assessors, called at the office of the petitioner with reference to settling the taxes for the years 1925 and 1926; the negotiations relative thereto were principally conducted by Moore under authority of the other assessors. At this time one Chace, the treasurer of the petitioner, orally applied to Moore for an abatement of the 1927 taxes assessed against both real and personal property. Moore understood that Chace was then making an application for an abatement of the 1927 taxes, and Chace believed that his oral request was a sufficient application therefor.
With reference to the application for abatement of the 1928 taxes, the auditor found that Chace called at the office of the assessors on October 29, 1928, and met Moore and paid by check under protest the taxes assessed for 1928; that just before giving the check Chace orally requested an abatement of this tax which was assessed against both real and personal property. Chace believed that his oral request was a sufficient application, and Moore understoodthat Chace was making an application for an abatement of the 1928 tax. Moore ceased to be a member of the board of assessors in March, 1929, and up to that time the board had not acted upon the applications for the abatement of the taxes assessed for 1927 and 1928 against local mills. In a number of mill taxes assessed for the years 1925 and 1926, and as to the petitioner's taxes assessed for the year 1926, the assessors granted requests for abatement without applications therefor in writing.
The auditor further found that Moore ‘believes to the best of his recollection that he informed the other assessors of the petitioner's said oral applications for abatements; but the other two members of his board, testified that they were not so informed, and I find as a fact that personally they did not receive that information.’
As the case is before us on the pleadings, the auditor's report and the rulings of the single justice, no element of discretion is involved; the only question is whether the writ ought to issue as matter of law. Hunter v. School Committee of Cambridge, 244 Mass. 296, 297, 138 N. E. 382.
It is conceded by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Assessors of Town of Brookline v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...an oral application for abatement was sufficient. Page v. Melrose, 186 Mass. 361, 71 N.E. 787;Shawmut Mills v. Assessors of Fall River, 271 Mass. 358, 359, 360, 171 N.E. 434. The statute, however, fixed the time within which such application should be made. See G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 59, § 59. S......
-
Board of Assessors of City of Boston v. Suffolk Law School
... ... Page v. Melrose, ... 186 Mass. 361, 363, 364, 71 N.E. 787. See, also, Shawmut ... Mills v. Board of Assessors, 271 Mass. 358, 360, 361, ... 171 N.E. 434. It follows, however, from the ... ...
-
Clancy v. Wallace
...law. School Committee of Lowell v. Mayor of Lowell, 265 Mass. 353, 354, 164 N. E. 91, and cases cited; Shawmut Mills v. Board of Assessors of Fall River, 271 Mass. 358, 360, 171 N. E. 434;Cochran v. Roemer, Building Commissioner of Boston (Mass.) 192 N. E. 58. The pertinent facts are these:......
-
Mellen v. Modern Parlor Frame Corp.
...of Hopkinton, 236 Mass. 5, 127 N.E. 540;Peckham v. Mayor of Fall River, 253 Mass. 590, 149 N.E. 622;Shawmut Mills v. Board of Assessors of City of Fall River, 271 Mass. 358, 171 N.E. 434;Elmer v. Commissioner of Insurance, 304 Mass. 194, 23 N.E.2d 95. The principal contention of the petitio......