Loud v. City of Charlestown

103 Mass. 278
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1869·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Wells, J.

The defendants could have no authority to levy the tax in question otherwise than under Gen. Sts. c. 11, § 12, cl. 1. There is no pretence that the plaintiffs had any manufactory in Charlestown ; and the jury have found that they had no store, shop or wharf there. The fact that they hired a lumber yard there, upon which they stored and sometimes sold lumber, and a small building for the convenience of men employed there, would not subject them to taxation for their personal property so being in Charlestown. They were liable to be taxed for it either in Boston, where they had a store and transacted their business mainly, or at their place of residence, and not wherever the property happened to be situated. The case seems to be entirely covered by the decision in Huckins v. Boston, 4 Cush. 543. Exceptions overruled.

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

Loud v. City of Charlestown, 103 Mass. 278 (Mass. 1869).

103 Mass. 278 (Loud v. City of Charlestown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barron v. City of Boston
72 N.E. 951 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Farwell v. Hathaway
23 N.E. 849 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Hood v. Judkins
28 N.W. 689 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)
Boston Loan Co. v. City of Boston
137 Mass. 332 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Hittinger v. Inhabitants of Westford
135 Mass. 258 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Stinson v. City of Boston
125 Mass. 348 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1878)
Workman v. City of Worcester
118 Mass. 168 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)
City of Charlestown v. County Commissioners
109 Mass. 270 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1872)