Miller v. Davis

34 A. 265, 88 Me. 454, 1896 Me. LEXIS 34
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 12, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 34 A. 265 (Miller v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. Davis, 34 A. 265, 88 Me. 454, 1896 Me. LEXIS 34 (Me. 1896).

Opinion

Strout, J.

Trespass against a tax collector for an alleged wrongful arrest upon a warrant for taxes. Motion for new trial, and exceptions to the charge of the presiding judge.

Upon the Motion. — The evidence was contradictory, but the preponderance was in favor of the defendant, for whom the jury returned a verdict. We perceive no reason to disturb the finding of the jury.

Upon the Exceptions.— The question was, Avhat constituted a sufficient demand of payment of the taxes. The instruction was:: "What is a sufficient demand? Any intimation to the tax payer that a payment is desired. It need not be in absolute words a demand; he need not go to the tax payer and say, I hereby demand of you payment; but anything that informs the tax payer that the collector has a warrant and desires the payment of his taxes, is a demand. He may say, will you be good enough to pay this tax, or, can I have this tax to-day? or can’t I have it? Anything that plainly brings home to the tax payer that the collector is there officially.”

This instruction Avas in accordance Avith law, and' fully protected the plaintiff’s rights.

Exceptions and motion overruled.

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

Related

Old Republic Insurance v. United States
625 F. Supp. 983 (Court of International Trade, 1986)
State v. Chambers
249 P.2d 158 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1952)
Van Meter v. Moore
30 Pa. D. & C. 459 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1937)
State v. Taylor
38 P.2d 680 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1934)
United States v. Armour & Co.
142 F. 808 (N.D. Illinois, 1906)
Jonesboro v. United Iron Works Co.
94 S.W. 726 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Bonnin v. Zuehlke
99 N.W. 445 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A. 265, 88 Me. 454, 1896 Me. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-davis-me-1896.