Barker v. Inhabitants of Watertown

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Barker v. Inhabitants of Watertown

137 Mass. 227, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 236

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 10, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 137 Mass. 227 (Barker v. Inhabitants of Watertown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barker v. Inhabitants of Watertown, 137 Mass. 227, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 236 (Mass. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

The plaintiffs had a “ place of business ” in Watertown, within the meaning of the statute, namely, á factory where they made starch, which was put into an adjacent storehouse and there kept till sold. They did business there every day. The case is not like Little v. Cambridge, 9 Cush. 298, in this respect. The property in question was employed in the plaintiff’s business in Watertown, and was properly taxable there, under the provisions of the Pub. Sts. c. 11, § 24.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

C. Allen, J.

The plaintiffs had a “ place of business ” in Watertown, within the meaning of the statute, namely, á factory where they made starch, which was put into an adjacent storehouse and there kept till sold. They did business there every day. The case is not like Little v. Cambridge, 9 Cush. 298, in this respect. The property in question was employed in the plaintiff’s business in Watertown, and was properly taxable there, under the provisions of the Pub. Sts. c. 11, § 24.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 Mass. 227, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-inhabitants-of-watertown-mass-1884.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack