Stinson v. City of Boston
Decision Date | 03 September 1878 |
Citation | 125 Mass. 348 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | Benjamin H. Stinson & others v. City of Boston |
Suffolk. Contract by Benjamin H. Stinson and four others, to recover back a tax assessed on May 1, 1876, to them as "owners or trustees" of a certain "new ship," and paid by them under protest. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the defendant, to this court, on appeal, on an agreed statement of facts in substance as follows:
On November 10, 1875, the plaintiffs, who had certain claims against a vessel, then on the stocks in East Boston, and owned by Frank F. Gorham, acting for themselves and other like claimants, entered into an agreement with Gorham and the other claimants, by which they agreed, in consideration of the conveyance of the vessel and of the release of such claims to themselves, to complete, launch and fit her for sea, and then sell her to the best possible advantage, or according to their best discretion and to the best advantage sell her as she lay, or at some other stage of the work toward fitting her for sea, and apply the proceeds of the sale to the payment of the several claimants and of Gorham in an order named.
All the claimants, including the plaintiffs, either had liens against the vessel for labor and materials furnished in her construction, or were the assignees of a mortgage upon the vessel, or had advanced money to build her.
The ship was launched on April 11, 1876, at which time her hull had been completed by the plaintiffs, but her masts were not in. Everything below decks was complete. Her lower masts were all put in before May 1, 1876, but the rest of her spars and other rigging and sails were not put up until the latter part of July, 1876. In the early part of April, 1876, the plaintiffs made an arrangement with the owners of a wharf at East Boston, for the vessel to have a berth at that wharf upon being launched, and to pay $ 4.50 a day therefor, so long as the vessel should lie there. The wharf was a capacious one, capable of accommodating eight or more ships. By a berth is meant a place for a ship to lie alongside of a wharf where there are all the facilities from the shore and by water to take in ballast, stores, spars, rigging, and anything that may be needed to complete the ship and fit her for sea. The hiring a berth carries with it the right to use and pass over the strip of the wharf limited by the length of the ship, and to occupy that portion with whatever material may be brought to be put into the ship. Nothing was put aboard the ship while she lay at the wharf, until after she was sold. The vessel, having been launched, and having had her lower masts put in, was hauled to the wharf, and lay there on May 1, 1876. On that day, the upper masts and yards were in the yard of the spar-maker, in Boston, finished and ready to be put up. On July 12, 1876, the plaintiffs sold the ship by public auction, in accordance with the power given them in the agreement.
On May 1, 1876, the plaintiffs were not partners, but all of them had separate places of business in Boston, and three of them resided there, the others residing in different towns in the Commonwealth.
The tax assessed and collected was based upon the whole vessel, and upon the entire taxable value thereof, so far as the vessel was constructed on May 1, 1876.
No sworn return or list was made by the trustees or any parties interested in the ship, and no petition made for an abatement of the tax.
If upon the foregoing facts, the plaintiffs, or any of them, were entitled to maintain this action for the whole or any part of the tax, judgment was to be entered for such of the plaintiffs and for such sum as they or any of them were entitled to recover, with interest; otherwise, judgment for the defendant.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
F. Goodwin, for the plaintiffs.
H. W. Putnam, for the defendant.
By the law of this Commonwealth, "all personal estate within or without this state," with certain exceptions well defined by statute, "shall be assessed to the owner in the city or town where he is an inhabitant on the first day of May." Gen. Sts. c. 11, § 12. At the date of the tax in this case, the legal title to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ingram v. Cowles
...a town other than where the owner dwells." Loan Co. v. Boston, 137 Mass. 332, 336; Hittinger v. Westford, 135 Mass. 258, 261; Stinson v. Boston, 125 Mass. 348, 351; v. Boston, 4 Cush. 543. See Hittinger v. Boston, 139 Mass. 17. We think that this principle has some application to the second......
-
Mcmanus v. City of Boston
...statutory provisions. Such provisions are not to be found. There is nothing at variance with the conclusion here reached in Stinson v. City of Boston, 125 Mass. 348, relied on by the plaintiff. In that case it was held that a tax assessed by the city of Boston to five joint owners of a ship......
-
Ricker v. American Loan & Trust Co.
...97, under Rev.St. c. 7, § 13, which is in the same language as Pub.St. c. 11 § 24. See, also, Lee v. Templeton, 6 Gray, 579;Stinson v. Boston, 125 Mass. 348-351. Section 47 of chapter 13 of the Public Statutes, which in terms provides another mode of taxation for companies or partnerships l......
-
McManus v. City of Boston
...statutory provisions. Such provisions are not to be found. There is nothing at variance with the conclusion here reached in Stinson v. Boston, 125 Mass. 348, relied on by plaintiff. In that case it was held that a tax assessed by the city of Boston to five joint owners of a ship was void by......