Tozier v. Woodworth

• Decision Date: 16 January 1940
• Docket Number: Nos. 1299-1304.,s. 1299-1304.
• Citation: 10 A.2d 454
• Parties: TOZIER, Collector, v. WOODWORTH et al., six cases.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

10 A.2d 454

TOZIER, Collector,

v. WOODWORTH et al., six cases.

Nos. 1299-1304.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 16, 1940.

On Motion and Exceptions from Superior Court, Waldo County.

Six actions by Lloyd W. Tozier, collector, against George L. Woodworth and Land, against Madeline P. Woodworth and Land, and against Minnie McL. Woodworth and Land, to enforce alleged liens for taxes upon interests of defendants in real estate. The trial justice found in each case plaintiff was entitled to judgment both as against defendants and the real estate attached, and defendants move to set decisions aside and bring exceptions.

Motions dismissed and exceptions overruled.

Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.

Francis W. Sullivan, of Portland, for plaintiff.

Paul L. Woodworth, of Fairfield, for defendants.

STURGIS, Justice.

These six cases were tried together before the Justice presiding at a term of the Superior Court with jury waived. By agreement of counsel, they Were presented as one case and argued together.

The actions were brought under R.S. Chap. 14, Sec. 28, to enforce alleged liens for taxes assessed in 1937 by the Assessors of the town of Unity upon interests in real estate there situate and accurately described in the respective assessments. The Assessors had jurisdiction to so assess, and the defendants were severally assessable. In each case, the Justice found the plaintiff entitled to judgment both as against the defendant and the real estate attached, in the amounts sued for and with costs.

The cases come forward on motions by the defendants to set the decisions aside, and on exceptions. The motions cannot be considered. The proper way to review errors of law in a case heard and determined by the Court without the aid of jury is, if at all, by exceptions. Thompson v. Thompson, 79 Me. 286, 291, 9 A. 888; Heim v. Coleman, 125 Me. 478, 135 A. 33.

The first Exceptions relate to the admission in evidence of the warrant for the town meeting at which the Assessors were chosen, which was offered as proof of the due election of these officers. Objection was made that the return of the person to whom the warrant was directed was legally insufficient. The original warrant with the return thereon is brought forward with the record. It shows on its back a return written in ink, corrected in ink as to date of posting, interlined, and modified as to punctuation in pencil and attested by a competent officer. This return was stricken out by lines in ink and below is a new return, complete in substance and proper in form, signed by the same officer. No jurat is attached.

A return by the person directed in a warrant for a town meeting to warn and notify the qualified voters to assemble at the time and place appointed is required by Statute. R.S., Chap. 5, Sec. 7. The return is essential to the validity of the meeting and the only proper evidence of its legality. Blaisdell v. Inhabitants of Town of York, 110 Me. 500, 510, 515, 87 A. 361; Auburn v. Water Power Co., 90 Me. 71, 78, 37 A. 335. If errors or omissions exist in the return, it may be amended according to fact by the officer whose duty it was to make it correctly. But the amendment must be under oath....