Pittsburg v. Danforth

• Decision Date: 23 December 1875
• Citation: 56 N.H. 272
• Parties: Pittsburg v. Danforth.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

56 N.H. 272

Pittsburg v. Danforth.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

December 23, 1875

Requisites of articles in warrant for town-meeting---Vote for the payment of bounties---Commutation money---Collector---Estoppel.

The object of specific articles in a warrant calling a town-meeting is, to give information to the voters of the subject-matters to be acted upon in the meeting, so that the voters may be enabled to act deliberately and intelligently.

The subject-matter intended for action, being plainly referred to in the warrant, authority is conferred upon the meeting to act upon minute specifications and particulars included, and necessarily involved in that subject-matter.The specifications thus involved need not be enumerated in particular terms.

The fourth article in the warrant for a town-meeting was "To see what sum of money the town will vote to pay, in addition to the sum already raised, as bounty to all the men drafted into the service of the United States, and accepted from May 1, 1864, to July 1, 1864."In the town-meeting it was "voted to dispense with the fourth article in the warning."At the same meeting it was "voted to pay to men who have been or shall hereafter be drafted from this town, or to the substitutes for such conscripts, the sum of one hundred dollars."On July 8, 1869, the legislature passed an act---Laws of 1869, ch. 126---"to ratify certain votes and acts of the town of Pittsburg."At a legal meeting, held January 26, 1870, the second article in the warrant---which was, "To see if the town will vote to ratify the vote, or article, of the meeting in said town of July 5, 1864, to pay one hundred dollars to men who were drafted from May 1 to July 1, 1864, and furnished substitutes to apply on said town's quota"---was adopted by a majority vote.Held, the town could not, under authority of this vote, pay money to persons who, having been drafted, had neither served in the war nor furnished substitutes, but had paid commutation money instead.

A selectman, who is appointed by his associates collector of taxes to fill a vacancy in that office, is not estopped to allege the invalidity of the warrant and list of taxes committed to him

From COÖS Circuit Court

DEBT upon a collector's bond.Trial in the circuit court, and transferred by LADD, J.

The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion by FOSTER, C. J., C. C.

Dudley (with whom was G. A. Bingham), for the plaintiffs, cited and commented upon the cases of Johnston v. Wilson, 2 N.H 202;Bath v. Haverhill, ibid. 555;Faxton v. Faxton, 28 Mich.---;andHagar v. Cleaveland, 36 Md. 476.Aldrich &amp Shurtleff (with whom were Hartshorn and Fletcher & Heywood), for the defendants, in support of their views upon the first question involved in the case, cited and commented upon Foxcroft v. Nevens, 4 Greenl.72; Colby v. Russell, 3 Greenl.227;Chase v. Sparhawk, 22 N.H. 134;Gordon v. Rundlett, 28 N.H. 435;Clark v. Bragdon, 37 N.H. 562;Copp v. Whipple, 41 N.H. 273; Herman on Estoppel 7, 8, 523;Davis v. Flanders, 11 N.H. 259;Guernsey v. Edwards, 26 N.H. 224, 231;Morrison'sDig. 324, n. 72;32 N.H. 172;41 N.H. 465; 11. N.H. 557;8 Mass. 79;Stevens v. Dennett, 51 N.H. 333;Co. Lit., sec. 669, and notes;Probate Court v. Matthews, 6 Vt. 274;Wells v. Barney, 4 Vt. 187; Judge of Probate v. Tillotson, 6 N.H. 38;City Council v. New Plank R. Co., 31 Ala. 75, 76

Upon the second question raised by the case, they referred to N.H. Laws of 1869, 371;Shackfordv.Newington, 46 N.H. 419;Eddyv.Landgrave, 44 Vt. 467;Tuckerv.Aiken, 7 N.H. 126;Crowellv.Hopkinton, 45 N.H. 9;Bradfordv.Newport, 42 N.H. 338;Ainsworthv.Dean, 21 N.H. 401;Richv.Errol, 51 N.H. 350;Herman on Estoppel, secs. 555--560;Mayorv.Sheffield, 4 Wall. 489;Moranv.Commissioners, 2 Black 722;Gilpekev.Dubuque, 1 Wall. 203, 291;Rogersv.Burlington, 3 Wall. 654.

FOSTER.C. J., C. C.^[*] The questions before us arise upon the assessment of damages after default in the circuit court.

One Chase was collector of taxes in the town of Pittsburg in the year 1870, and the warrant and list for that year were duly committed to him.

The warrant and list were signed by Calvin J. Danforth and Parker T. Danforth, who were two of the three selectmen.Before January 9, 1871, Chase removed from town, and the defendant---Calvin J. Danforth---was appointed to fill the vacancy occasioned by Chase's removal, his appointment or commission being signed by his two associate selectmen, Parker T. Danforth and F. C. Jacobs; and the bond in suit was thereupon executed.

At that time there was a sum of money remaining uncollected upon the list of taxes which had been committed to Chase, and the same list, and the warrant accompanying it, were handed over to Danforth without alteration; and he has never had any other list or warrant, for the collection of those taxes, than the warrant and list originally committed to Chase.

Danforth proceeded, however, to collect the taxes (no person resisting the payment of his taxes for the reason of any alleged invalidity), and has collected all the amount on the list, except the sum of $141.40.

The town seeks to charge him for that sum; and the defendants claim that he cannot be legally held to account for it, by reason of the alleged invalidity of the warrant and list.This issue presents the first question for our consideration.

I.The uncollected taxes ($141.40) should be deducted from the sum of $534.10, with which the plaintiffs seek to charge the collector.His warrant was not sufficient to authorize him to collector taxes which the parties owing them were not willing to pay.Gen. Stats., ch. 53, sec. 8.He is not estopped to deny the invalidity of his warrant.

In accepting the appointment of collector, he did no act in the capacity of selectman.He could not appoint himself; but, like any other citizen, and in a private capacity, he received a legal appointment from the other selectmen.How can he be estopped by their act?What misrepresentation or concealment with knowledge, on his part, has he made, whereby the town or the other selectmen have been induced to change their position?None is suggested.He was appointed, and accepted the appointment and the accompanying list of taxes, on no representation of his own, but on the supposition, by all concerned, that the whole transaction was legal and fair.Stevensv.Dennett, 51 N.H. 333.

The defendants claim that from the amount collected by Danforth ($1,033.74) should be deducted $300.66, being the amount of three orders drawn by the selectmen in favor of R. W. Danforth and C. H. Sargent, and directed to the town treasurer.If the town is legally liable to pay these orders, they should be deducted from the amount in the collector's hands, and applied for the benefit of the defendants.

Some time before July 5, 1864, Roswell W. Danforth and Charles H. Sargent had been drafted from Pittsburg into the military service of the United States, and to free themselves from such draft had paid commutation money, $300 each.On said July 5, 1864, a town-meeting was held, at which it was voted "to pay to men who have been or shall hereafter be drafted from this town, or to the substitutes for such conscripts, the sum of $100."The fourth article in the warrant for that meeting was "to see what sum of money the town will vote to pay, in addition to the sum already raised, as bounty to all the men drafted into the service of the United States, and accepted, from May 1, 1864, to July 1, 1864."Voted, "to dispense with the fourth article in the warning."

July 8, 1869, the legislature passed an act "to ratify certain votes and acts of the town of Pittsburg."Acts of 1869, ch. 126, page 371.

At a meeting of the legal voters of Pittsburg, held January 26, 1870, the second article in the warrant was "to see if the town will vote to ratify the vote, or article, of the meeting in said town, of July 5, 1864, to pay $100 to men who were drafted from May 1 to July 1, 1864, and furnished substitutes to apply on said town's quota.""Voted on article second in the warrant.Whole number of votes cast was seventy-three

; number of votes in favor of ratifying said article second, or ratifying the votes of said town of Pittsburg, of July

5, 1864, was thirty-seven

; and the whole number that were not in favor of said ratification, and voted no, was thirty-six

."

The orders in question were given to Danforth and Sargent, on account of their supposed right under said votes, and were for $100 to each of them, and accrued interest thereon.These facts present the second question for our consideration.

II.At a town-meeting in Pittsburg, held July 5, 1864, it was voted "to pay to men who have been or shall hereafter be drafted from this town, or to the substitutes for such conscripts, the sum of $100."At the same meeting the town voted, upon an article in the warrant, to see what sum, in addition to what had been already raised, the town would vote to pay to those men who were drafted and accepted between May 1 and July 1, 1864.

The town voted to dispense with this article, which thereby became a nullity, leaving the action of the town a vote to pay to all who have been or shall hereafter be drafted, or to each substitute for such man, $100.

Now it is manifest that the vote which was adopted, covered and included within the scope of its purport and intention all that was embraced in the article which the town rejected.

The purport of the whole action of the town was, that they would not make any distinction in favor of those who had been drafted and accepted within a specified time, and who had served in person and not by substitutes; but that they would pay to all who had been or...