Gale v. Mead

2 Denio 160
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1846
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 2 Denio 160 (Gale v. Mead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gale v. Mead, 2 Denio 160 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

Opinion

By the Court, Bronson C. J.

A district tax should be assessed, and the tax list made out by the trustees, within one month after the meeting at which the tax was voted. (1 R. S. 483, § 82.) Neither of the tax lists in this case was made out in season. But there are no negative words in the statute, such as would necessarily make it imperative; and in such a case, for the benefit of the public, the act may be done after the time has elapsed—the statute, as to time, being regarded as directory only. Pond v. Negus, (3 Mass. 230,) is a case directly in point; and we have approved of that decision. (The People v. Allen, 6 Wend. 486. And see Rex v. Sparrow, 2 Str. 1123; Striker v. Kelly, 7 Hill, 9.) The plaintiff relies on the case of Gale v. Mead, (4 Hill, 109;) but there the tax list was made out before the tax had been finally voted; and consequently the principle which has been mentioned could not be applied. Had it appeared in this case that there was a change in the taxable persons or property in the district between the expiration of the month and the time the tax list was made out, a different question would have been presented. But it does not appear that there was any such change, or that the plaintiff was in any way injured by the delay.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Wampler v. State ex rel. Alexander
38 L.R.A. 829 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1897)
People ex rel. Francis v. Cahill
5 A.D. 570 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Montgomery v. O'Dell
22 N.Y.S. 412 (New York Supreme Court, 1893)
Broezel v. City of Buffalo
6 N.Y.S. 723 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
In re Ferris
10 N.Y. St. Rep. 480 (Superior Court of Buffalo, 1887)
Duntley v. Davis
49 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 229 (New York Supreme Court, 1886)
City of Pensacola v. Bell
22 Fla. 469 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1886)
Sackett v. State ex rel. Foreman
74 Ind. 486 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Witheril v. Mosher
16 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 412 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Rawson v. Van Riper
1 Thomp. & Cook 370 (New York Supreme Court, 1873)
People ex rel. Locke v. Common Council of Rochester
5 Lans. 11 (New York Supreme Court, 1871)
Hill v. Wolfe
28 Iowa 577 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1870)
State ex rel. Webster v. County Commissioners
29 Md. 516 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1868)
Tousey v. Bell
23 Ind. 423 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1864)
Foster v. Bryan
16 Abb. Pr. 396 (New York Supreme Court, 1863)
People Ex Rel. Barnes v. Gardner
24 N.Y. 583 (New York Court of Appeals, 1862)
Case of the Empire City Bank
6 Abb. Pr. 385 (New York Supreme Court, 1857)
Thomas v. Clapp
20 Barb. 165 (New York Supreme Court, 1855)
Parker v. Brown
17 Barb. 145 (New York Supreme Court, 1853)
Doughty v. Hope
3 Denio 594 (New York Court of Appeals, 1848)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Denio 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gale-v-mead-nysupct-1846.