Hopkins v. Inhabitants of Reading

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Hopkins v. Inhabitants of Reading

49 N.E. 923, 170 Mass. 568, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 280

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 30, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 N.E. 923 (Hopkins v. Inhabitants of Reading) 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

Hopkins v. Inhabitants of Reading, 49 N.E. 923, 170 Mass. 568, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 280 (Mass. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, J.

The petitioner was not an inhabitant of Reading or of the State on May 1, 1896, and did not bring in a list as required by the assessors, under Pub. Sts. c. 11, § 38. Before filing his petition he did file a list with them, as required by § 72. The court did not pass upon the question whether there was good cause why the list was not brought in within the time fixed by the assessors, § 72, other than that the petitioner was a nonresident, but found for the petitioner and reported the case.

We are of opinion that, putting the case at the lowest, the judge was warranted in finding as, if necessary, we must assume [569]*569him to have done, that residence in another State was good cause why the list was not brought in earlier. But we need not stop there, as we are of opinion that such residence is sufficient cause as matter of law. The only persons to whom the notice of the assessors is to be given under §38 are the inhabitants. It is true that § 72 requires a list from any person seeking an abatement whether resident or not. Winnisimmet Co. v. Chelsea, 6 Cush. 477. But as the only section fixing a time for doing so is § 38, which does not apply to non-residents, it follows that any time before filing a petition for abatement is seasonable for them.

Judgment upon the finding.

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

Holmes, J.

The petitioner was not an inhabitant of Reading or of the State on May 1, 1896, and did not bring in a list as required by the assessors, under Pub. Sts. c. 11, § 38. Before filing his petition he did file a list with them, as required by § 72. The court did not pass upon the question whether there was good cause why the list was not brought in within the time fixed by the assessors, § 72, other than that the petitioner was a nonresident, but found for the petitioner and reported the case.

We are of opinion that, putting the case at the lowest, the judge was warranted in finding as, if necessary, we must assume [569]*569him to have done, that residence in another State was good cause why the list was not brought in earlier. But we need not stop there, as we are of opinion that such residence is sufficient cause as matter of law. The only persons to whom the notice of the assessors is to be given under §38 are the inhabitants. It is true that § 72 requires a list from any person seeking an abatement whether resident or not. Winnisimmet Co. v. Chelsea, 6 Cush. 477. But as the only section fixing a time for doing so is § 38, which does not apply to non-residents, it follows that any time before filing a petition for abatement is seasonable for them.

Judgment upon the finding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 N.E. 923, 170 Mass. 568, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-inhabitants-of-reading-mass-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack