Cochran v. Guild

106 Mass. 29
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 106 Mass. 29 (Cochran v. Guild) 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
Cochran v. Guild, 106 Mass. 29 (Mass. 1870).

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

On May 1, 1868, when the taxes were as-

sessed, the land became liable for their payment. It is true that payment was not to be made till the tax bills should be made out and put into the hands of the collector, and all the necessary preliminary steps should be taken on his part. It is also true that they might be collected otherwise than by a sale of the land, and thus its liability might terminate, or it might cease by lapse of time. But they have not been paid otherwise, and the purchaser has been compelled to pay them. He was obliged to pay them in order to relieve the land from a liability to which it was subject when he took his conveyance with the covenant against incumbrances. These taxes had all the characteristics of an incumbrance. What constituted the incumbrance was the present paramount right of the city to hold the land subject to the payment of the taxes already assessed, if they should not be paid otherwise. It is none the less an incumbrance because the taxes might be collected otherwise. It might as well be contended that a mortgage to secure a note given by a third person was not an incumbrance, because the note might be collected of the maker. It is contended that this is no morel an incumbrance than the liability of the land for the taxes that may be assessed in future years. But the obvious difference is, that there can be no liability for an assessment which does not exist, and the covenant relates merely to existing incumbrances.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Related

Lafond v. Frame
99 N.E.2d 51 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
City of Denver v. Tax Research Bureau
71 P.2d 809 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1937)
H. H. Brown Co. v. Commissioner
8 B.T.A. 112 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1927)
Logan v. Luukinen
231 P. 184 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)
Territory of Arizona v. Perrin
83 P. 361 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1905)
Cooper v. Island Realty Co.
16 Haw. 92 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1904)
Maddocks v. Stevens
36 A. 398 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1896)
Merriam v. Goodlett
54 N.W. 686 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1893)
Richardson v. City of Boston
20 N.E. 166 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Kearns v. Cunniff
138 Mass. 434 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Sherwin v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank
137 Mass. 444 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
State v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.
77 Mo. 202 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Swan v. Emerson
129 Mass. 289 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Carr v. Dooley
119 Mass. 294 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1876)
Blackie v. Hudson
117 Mass. 181 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)
Davis v. Bean
114 Mass. 358 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 Mass. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-guild-mass-1870.