Parsons v. Inhabitants of Town of Lenox

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtCARROLL
Citation228 Mass. 231,117 N.E. 197
Decision Date25 September 1917
PartiesPARSONS v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF LENOX.

228 Mass. 231
117 N.E. 197

PARSONS
v.
INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF LENOX.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.

Sept. 25, 1917.


Report from Superior Court, Berkshire County; Charles F. Jenney, Judge.

Proceedings by Florence V. C. Parsons, executrix of the estate of David W. Bishop, deceased, against the Inhabitants of the Town of Lenox. Case reported. Complaint dismissed, and judgment for defendant.


Herbert [228 Mass. 232]Parker, of Boston, Chas.
E. Hibbard, of Pittsfield, and Thos. D. Hewitt, of New York City, for complainant.

George A. Mole, of Lenox, and Noxon & Eisner, of Pittsfield, for respondent.

[117 N.E. 198]


CARROLL, J.

This is a complaint under St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 1, § 77, for an abatement of taxes for the year 1912, assessed upon the estate of David W. Bishop, a resident of Lenox in this commonwealth, who died in Paris, France, December 1, 1911. The complainant is the mother of the testator and the executrix of his will, which was proved and allowed in the Surrogate's Court of the county of New York in the state of New York, on or about [228 Mass. 233]March 7, 1912, and in the probate court for Berkshire county, February 4, 1913.

The assessors of the respondent town, on or about April 1, 1912, caused to be posted in three public places in Lenox, notices requiring lists of property to be brought to them on or before May 15, 1912. St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 1, §§ 41, 42, 43; St. 1909, c. 515. No list was filed with the assessors by the complainant within the time stated in the notice. In December, 1912, a list was mailed from New York City, where Mrs. Parsons, the complainant, resided, directed to the assessors of Lenox. This list was not sworn to and subsequently was withdrawn for corrections. A second list, sworn to before a notary public, was filed with the assessors January 10, 1913; and a third list, sworn to before a notary, was filed in March, 1913.

At the time of the annual assessment, in addition to an assessment of real estate, furniture and tangible property which is not in dispute, an assessment was made ‘of other ratable personal property’ in the sum of $500,000, representing a tax at the Lenox tax rate for 1912 of $5,500. A second assessment of $500,000 of personal property, omitted from the former assessment, was made within the time required by St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 1, § 85, and St. 1911, c. 89. See Gannett v. Cambridge, 218 Mass. 60, 105 N. E. 447. It is in connection with the two assessments of $500,000 each and the tax of $11,000, that these proceedings were commenced. The tax bill for $5,500 on the first assessment was sent September 1, 1912. The bill for the omitted assessment was sent on or before January 1, 1913. The value of the estate was found by the commissioner to be $450,569.91, as stated in the third list filed. In March, 1913, following the filing of the last list, the complainant petitioned for an abatement, in consequence of which the tax of $11,000 was reduced by the sum of $3,549.21. This tax, as abated, was paid under protest on May 31, 1913.

It was found by the commissioner that the testator's personal property, ‘at the time of his death and until the close of his estate was physically situated outside the commonwealth of Massachusetts, except for an undivided half interest in certain furniture and other household effects located on the real estate in Lenox.’ ‘He [the testator] had at the time of his death, considerable property in France, and his other tangible property, as well as all [228 Mass. 234]his securities, were physically present at the time of his death, until his estate was closed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Cent. Nat. Bank v. City of Lynn
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 12, 1927
    ...College v. Amherst, 193 Mass. 168, 79 N. E. 248;Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Malden, 216 Mass. 508, 511, 104 N. E. 478;Parsons v. Lenox, 228 Mass. 231, 117 N. E. 197;Dexter v. Beverly, 249 Mass. 167, 169, 143 N. E. 904. The filing of the ‘statement on oath’ is a condition precedent to the main......
  • Old Colony R. Co. v. Assessors of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 26, 1941
    ...may be made dependent upon the filing of such a list. Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Malden, 216 Mass. 508, 104 N.E. 478;Parsons v. Lenox, 228 Mass. 231, 117 N.E. 197;Central National Bank v. Lynn, 259 Mass. 1, 156 N.E. 42;Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law School, 295 Mass. 489, 4 N.E.2d 342;Ol......
  • Inhabitants of Town of Southborough v. Boston & Worcester St. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 14, 1924
    ...207 Mass. 172, 93 N. E. 586;Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Malden, 216 Mass. 508, 104 N. E. 478, and cases there collected; Parsons v. Lenox, 228 Mass. 231, 235, 117 N. E. 197. [4][5] The circumstance that the physical location of the railway was chiefly over private land rather than over public......
  • Day v. Old Colony Trust Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 25, 1917
    ...not lost because of this proceeding. Jennings v. Wall, 217 Mass. 278, 281, 104 N. E. 738;Deans v. Eldridge, 217 Mass. 583, 105 N. E. 449.[228 Mass. 231]As there was evidence that the account stood in the name of ‘Frederick K. Day, conservator for Anna W. Meeker,’ there was a question for th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Cent. Nat. Bank v. City of Lynn
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 12, 1927
    ...College v. Amherst, 193 Mass. 168, 79 N. E. 248;Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Malden, 216 Mass. 508, 511, 104 N. E. 478;Parsons v. Lenox, 228 Mass. 231, 117 N. E. 197;Dexter v. Beverly, 249 Mass. 167, 169, 143 N. E. 904. The filing of the ‘statement on oath’ is a condition precedent to the main......
  • Old Colony R. Co. v. Assessors of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 26, 1941
    ...may be made dependent upon the filing of such a list. Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Malden, 216 Mass. 508, 104 N.E. 478;Parsons v. Lenox, 228 Mass. 231, 117 N.E. 197;Central National Bank v. Lynn, 259 Mass. 1, 156 N.E. 42;Assessors of Boston v. Suffolk Law School, 295 Mass. 489, 4 N.E.2d 342;Ol......
  • Inhabitants of Town of Southborough v. Boston & Worcester St. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 14, 1924
    ...207 Mass. 172, 93 N. E. 586;Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Malden, 216 Mass. 508, 104 N. E. 478, and cases there collected; Parsons v. Lenox, 228 Mass. 231, 235, 117 N. E. 197. [4][5] The circumstance that the physical location of the railway was chiefly over private land rather than over public......
  • Day v. Old Colony Trust Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 25, 1917
    ...not lost because of this proceeding. Jennings v. Wall, 217 Mass. 278, 281, 104 N. E. 738;Deans v. Eldridge, 217 Mass. 583, 105 N. E. 449.[228 Mass. 231]As there was evidence that the account stood in the name of ‘Frederick K. Day, conservator for Anna W. Meeker,’ there was a question for th......
  • 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