Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Heard
This text of 103 Mass. 543 (Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Heard) 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.
Opinion
The tax in question was assessed by persons who appear to have acted- under color of an election by the town, evidenced by its records of the proceedings at the annual meeting of the inhabitants, showing that these persons were chosen assessors • and they have taken an official oath as such assessors. They were therefore assessors de facto. The only defect relied upon to prove that they were not assessors de jure is, that the check-list required by our statutes was not used [544]*544in balloting for them. Gen. Sts. c. 7, § 9. St. 1862, c. 180. St. 1868, c. 262. But it is we.i eettled that the validity of the acts of officers de facto cannot be called in question in suits or proceedings to which they are not parties. Elliott v. Willis, 1 Allen, 461, and cases there cited. Fitchburg Railroad Co. v. Grand Junction Railroad & Depot Co. Ib. 552.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
103 Mass. 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inhabitants-of-sudbury-v-heard-mass-1870.