Salisbury Beach Assocs. v. Evans

• Decision Date: 04 January 1917
• Parties: SALISBURY BEACH ASSOCIATES v. EVANS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

225 Mass. 399

114 N.E. 675

SALISBURY BEACH ASSOCIATES

v.EVANS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Jan. 4, 1917.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Essex County; William C. Loring, Judge.

Petition for mandamus by the Salisbury Beach Associates against William M. Evans and others, Assessors of the Town of Salisbury. On report for determination of the full court. Petition dismissed.

Walter Coulson and A. N. Frost, both of Lawrence, for petitioners.

J. T. Choate, of Amesbury, and A. F. Priest, of Haverhill, for respondents.

RUGG, C. J.

This petition for a writ of mandamus was reported ‘for the consideration and determination of the full court, such order to be entered as law and justice may require.’ Respecting similar phraseology, it was said in Scanlon v. Carey, 207 Mass. 285, 93 N. E. 697, that:

‘The reservation in this case is informal, but the parties have treated it, and we treat it as intended to report to this court questions of law that arose at the hearing, which was all that * * * could be reserved or reported under the statute, R. L. c. 156, § 7; c. 173, § 105.’ Boucher v. Salem Rebuilding Commission, 225 Mass. 18, 113 N. E. 575.

The petitioners are owners of Salisbury Beach, which contains about five hundred acres of land. The respondents are the assessors of the town of Salisbury, within the territory of which the beach lies. On November 8, 1915, the petitioners notified the respondents that the real estate assessed to them in 1913 had been divided by sale since the tax for 1913 had been assessed, and such division recorded, and requested them ‘to apportion said tax of 1913, and the costs and interest accrued thereon, upon the several parcels thereof in proportion to the value of each,’ in accordance with St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 1, § 88.¹ On December 18, 1915, another request for apportionment was addressed to the respondents, stating that the Lawrence Trust Company had a duly recorded mortgage upon all their property except Lot 437, Sheet 3200-N on a plan filed in the registry of deeds, and asking apportionment of the tax ‘upon said parcel and upon the rest of the registered land which is covered by said mortgage.’ Apparently this mortgage was subsequent to April 1, 1913. The petitioners have paid all but $769.31 out of $7,142.65, the total tax assessed as of April 1, 1913. The respondent assessors refused to make the apportionment and this petition is brought to compel them to do so.

The earlier of the two requests for apportionment was made on November 8, 1915, more than five weeks after the lien for the taxes of 1913 had expired as to parcels of land which had in the meantime been alienated. St. 1909, c. 490, pt. 2, § 36. It is one of the agreed facts that a large number of lots were sold out of the beach estate by the petitioners after April 1, 1913, and before April 1, 1914. Rights as to collection of the tax are limited somewhat by any apportionment. Regers v. Gookin, 198 Mass. 434, 85 N. E. 405. But it is manifest that the right to an apportionment under section...