Thomas v. Leland
| Decision Date | 02 December 1897 |
| Citation | 70 Vt. 223,39 A. 1094 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | THOMAS v. LELAND. |
Exceptions from Addison county court; Tyler, Judge.
Action by James W. Thomas against Betsey E. Leland. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Affirmed.
Trustee process for the collection of a tax claimed to be due from the defendant to the town of Salisbury, for which the plaintiff is collector. Upon the report of a referee at the December term, 1896, Addison county (Tyler, J., presiding), a pro forma judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted. The defendant, claiming to be a nonresident, returned an inventory containing her real estate only. No use of this inventory was made by the listers, nor did they deposit it in the town clerk's office. They ascertained that the defendant had debts due her from parties in this state, amounting to $8,000, and made out an inventory containing her real estate and this item of personal property; and these sums (in all, $8,632) they used in making up her grand list, which was thus $86.32.
Charles F. Kingsley, for plaintiff.
Button & Button, for defendant.
TAE'T, J. There is one fatal objection to a recovery by the plaintiff. The inventory made by the defendant in the year in question was rejected by the listers, and never filed in the clerk's office. After its rejection they proceeded to ascertain as best they could the amount of defendant's taxable property. They ascertained she had debts due her amounting to $8,000, and made her list accordingly. It does not appear that the appraised value of her property was doubled, as required by the statute. Whether it was so done or not is immaterial in the case as it stands; for, whatever mode was pursued, it was the duty of the listers, under section 425, V. S., to give the defendant a written notice of the making of the list, on or before the 1st day of May of that year, or by leaving such notice at her last and usual place of abode, if a resident. Such notice was not so left until a day or two after the 1st day of May. The statutory provision made for notice is mandatory. A strict compliance with it in all essential particulars is a condition precedent to a valid list. As some writers say, a day too late renders the assessment void. The notification in the manner provided by the statute, after the 1st day of May, was null. The provision requiring it to be left on or before that day was a condition precedent to a valid list, and, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Villeneuve v. Town of Underhill, 161-71
...In support of this argument plaintiffs rely on the holdings in Ryan v. Rooney, 88 Vt. 88, 90 A. 91 (1914); Thomas v. Leland, 70 Vt. 223, 39 A. 1094 (1897); and Meserve v. Folsom, 62 Vt. 504, 20 A. 926 (1899). The argument made by the plaintiffs presupposes the fact that once they voluntaril......
-
P. H. Ryan v. George T. Rooney
... ... 91] essential ... requirements of the statute is established. Meserve ... v. Folsom, 62 Vt. 504, 20 A. 926; Thomas v ... Leland, 70 Vt. 223, 39 A. 1094 ... There ... was no evidence, or offered evidence, which fairly and ... reasonably ... ...
-
Rooney Vermont Associates v. Town of Pownal, 284-80
...must be strictly followed. Cases cited by plaintiff regarding procedural variations of similar statutes are inapposite. Thomas v. Leland, 70 Vt. 223, 39 A. 1094 (1897), involved notification given too late, not too early. Smith v. Stannard, 81 Vt. 319, 70 A. 568 (1908), involved a failure t......
-
Ryan v. Rooney
...must comply with the essential requirements of the statute is established. Meserve v. Folsom, 62 Vt. 504, 20 Atl. 926; Thomas v. Leland, 70 Vt. 223, 39 Atl. 1094. There was no evidence, or offered evidence, which fairly and reasonably tended to show that the plaintiff waived the requirement......