Herriman v. Stowers

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Herriman v. Stowers

43 Me. 497

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 1, 1857

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 43 Me. 497 (Herriman v. Stowers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herriman v. Stowers, 43 Me. 497 (Me. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Rice, J.

Sec. 56 of chap. 14, R. S., provides, that the assessors of towns, plantations, parishes and religious societies shall not be made responsible for the assessment of any tax which they are by law required to assess; but the liability shall rest solely with said corporations; and the assessors shall be responsible only for their own personal faithfulness and integrity. By the act of amendment, these provisions are extended so as to include school districts.

It is admitted that the defendants were legal assessors, and that the tax against the plaintiff was legally assessed.

The case also shows that the plaintiff was arrested on a warrant duly issued to the collector, and that to procure his discharge from arrest he was compelled to pay this tax, which he did under protest. The jury found that the plaintiff, at the time the tax was levied and assessed, resided in Searsport.

Without statute protection, under the facts as they exist in this case, the defendants are manifestly liable. Does the statute protect them? Was the tax against the defendant one which they were by law required to assess? Clearly not. They could only assess the inhabitants of their town, and the property within it. Beyond this, as assessors, they have no jurisdiction. This provision, therefore, does not protect them. Gage v. Currier, 4 Pick., 399; Ingraham v. Daggett, 5 Pick., 451; Inglee v. Bosworth, 5 Pick., 498; [500]*500Withington v. Eveleth, 7 Pick., 106; Freeman v. Kenney, 15 Pick., 44; Mosier v. Robie, 2 Fairf., 135.

The remedy by application to the assessors for an abatement applies only where there has been over taxation, where there was authority to tax, and not where the whole tax was unauthorized and illegal. Howe v. Boston, 7 Cush., 273.

The provisions of sec. 62, chap. 6, R. S., were manifestly intended to apply to elections, and do not include the case at bar. Trafton v. Alfred, 15 Maine R., 258.

The case must stand for trial.

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

Rice, J.

Sec. 56 of chap. 14, R. S., provides, that the assessors of towns, plantations, parishes and religious societies shall not be made responsible for the assessment of any tax which they are by law required to assess; but the liability shall rest solely with said corporations; and the assessors shall be responsible only for their own personal faithfulness and integrity. By the act of amendment, these provisions are extended so as to include school districts.

It is admitted that the defendants were legal assessors, and that the tax against the plaintiff was legally assessed.

The case also shows that the plaintiff was arrested on a warrant duly issued to the collector, and that to procure his discharge from arrest he was compelled to pay this tax, which he did under protest. The jury found that the plaintiff, at the time the tax was levied and assessed, resided in Searsport.

Without statute protection, under the facts as they exist in this case, the defendants are manifestly liable. Does the statute protect them? Was the tax against the defendant one which they were by law required to assess? Clearly not. They could only assess the inhabitants of their town, and the property within it. Beyond this, as assessors, they have no jurisdiction. This provision, therefore, does not protect them. Gage v. Currier, 4 Pick., 399; Ingraham v. Daggett, 5 Pick., 451; Inglee v. Bosworth, 5 Pick., 498; [500]*500Withington v. Eveleth, 7 Pick., 106; Freeman v. Kenney, 15 Pick., 44; Mosier v. Robie, 2 Fairf., 135.

The remedy by application to the assessors for an abatement applies only where there has been over taxation, where there was authority to tax, and not where the whole tax was unauthorized and illegal. Howe v. Boston, 7 Cush., 273.

The provisions of sec. 62, chap. 6, R. S., were manifestly intended to apply to elections, and do not include the case at bar. Trafton v. Alfred, 15 Maine R., 258.

The case must stand for trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Me. 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herriman-v-stowers-me-1857.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack