McAdam v. Honey

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

McAdam v. Honey

39 A. 189, 20 R.I. 351, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 51

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 11, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 A. 189 (McAdam v. Honey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McAdam v. Honey, 39 A. 189, 20 R.I. 351, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 51 (R.I. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Matteson, C. J.

The questions submitted assume that the assessment was made on May 10, 1897, on which day the assessors signed the assessment roll and deposited it with the city clerk. We think, however, that the assessment must be deemed to have been made on February 27, 1897, the day following the last date on which the tax-payers were notified to bring in an account of their ratable estate. The property of a tax-payer and his financial condition are liable to change from day to day. For this reason it may well be doubted whether notice to tax-payers to bring in their accounts in February would give validity to an assessment made so long afterwards as May 10th. McTwiggan v. Hunter, 18 R. I. 776. Moreover, to require the assessors to follow all changes that might take place in the holdings of property while the preparation of the assessment roll was in progress would be exceedingly inconvenient, if not impracticable.

The assessment in legal contemplation having been made as of February 27, 1897, the subsequent conveyances referred to in the statement are subject to it. If the whole tax covering the several parcels taxed to the devisees of John S. Langley is paid by the holder of one of the parcels, to prevent the sale of his parcel, we think he would be entitled to *352 recover from those who have acquired the other parcels the proportions of the tax which equitably should be paid on account of those parcels.

William P. Sheffield, Jr., for petitioner. Samuel B. Honey, for respondent.

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

Matteson, C. J.

The questions submitted assume that the assessment was made on May 10, 1897, on which day the assessors signed the assessment roll and deposited it with the city clerk. We think, however, that the assessment must be deemed to have been made on February 27, 1897, the day following the last date on which the tax-payers were notified to bring in an account of their ratable estate. The property of a tax-payer and his financial condition are liable to change from day to day. For this reason it may well be doubted whether notice to tax-payers to bring in their accounts in February would give validity to an assessment made so long afterwards as May 10th. McTwiggan v. Hunter, 18 R. I. 776. Moreover, to require the assessors to follow all changes that might take place in the holdings of property while the preparation of the assessment roll was in progress would be exceedingly inconvenient, if not impracticable.

The assessment in legal contemplation having been made as of February 27, 1897, the subsequent conveyances referred to in the statement are subject to it. If the whole tax covering the several parcels taxed to the devisees of John S. Langley is paid by the holder of one of the parcels, to prevent the sale of his parcel, we think he would be entitled to *352 recover from those who have acquired the other parcels the proportions of the tax which equitably should be paid on account of those parcels.

William P. Sheffield, Jr., for petitioner. Samuel B. Honey, for respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A. 189, 20 R.I. 351, 1898 R.I. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcadam-v-honey-ri-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack