Mandelbaum v. People

Supreme Court

Mandelbaum v. People

75 U.S. 310

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 15, 1868

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 U.S. 310 (Mandelbaum v. People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mandelbaum v. People, 75 U.S. 310 (1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

It will be seen by reference to the statutes of the Territory of the 29th November, 1861, that the assessor is only authorized to make subsequent assessments upon the property of a citizen or inhabitant, which was-,subject to taxation at a regular or annual assessment, and had escaped the tax from mistake, or otherwise, and which is a very common provision in every system of taxation. And, if this was the question presented to the court below, upon the pleadings or proofs, there could be no doubt as to the correctness of the decision. But the question presented by the answer was not one of this description, but of double taxation; for, if the 'facts were true as set forth, the property had been taxed either at the regular assessment, or had been purchased or procured by the defendants after this assessment; and, therefore, not the subject of a subsequent tax within the meaning of the statute. On this ground the answer presented a perfect defence to the action.

The court below, however, on motion of the plaintiff, struck out this defence as to all the property except one item of seven or eight thousand dollars in value, which stood in the answer in the same category with all the rest of the property. This singular mode of meeting a legal defence set up in the pleadings has not- been explained by any counsel representing the plaintiff; and in the absence of such ex[314]*314planation, we can only apply to it the usual and customary principles governing pleadings in like cases, and hold that it was an error which entitled the party aggrieved to a reversal of the judgment.

If any authority was needed for so obvious a proposition, we refer to the case of Hozey v. Buchanan.

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

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

It will be seen by reference to the statutes of the Territory of the 29th November, 1861, that the assessor is only authorized to make subsequent assessments upon the property of a citizen or inhabitant, which was-,subject to taxation at a regular or annual assessment, and had escaped the tax from mistake, or otherwise, and which is a very common provision in every system of taxation. And, if this was the question presented to the court below, upon the pleadings or proofs, there could be no doubt as to the correctness of the decision. But the question presented by the answer was not one of this description, but of double taxation; for, if the 'facts were true as set forth, the property had been taxed either at the regular assessment, or had been purchased or procured by the defendants after this assessment; and, therefore, not the subject of a subsequent tax within the meaning of the statute. On this ground the answer presented a perfect defence to the action.

The court below, however, on motion of the plaintiff, struck out this defence as to all the property except one item of seven or eight thousand dollars in value, which stood in the answer in the same category with all the rest of the property. This singular mode of meeting a legal defence set up in the pleadings has not- been explained by any counsel representing the plaintiff; and in the absence of such ex[314]*314planation, we can only apply to it the usual and customary principles governing pleadings in like cases, and hold that it was an error which entitled the party aggrieved to a reversal of the judgment.

If any authority was needed for so obvious a proposition, we refer to the case of Hozey v. Buchanan.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 U.S. 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandelbaum-v-people-scotus-1868.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack