Waite v. Inhabitants of Princeton

66 Me. 225, 1877 Me. LEXIS 136
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided January 11, 1877·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appleton, C. J.

The plaintiffs reside in Calais, but have- a store and transact business in Princeton. They bring this action to recover back moneys paid under protest for taxes assessed on real and personal property not legally taxable to them in the defendant town.

[226] The point relied on in defense is, that assuming they were not liable to be taxed for' the property, of the taxation of which they complain, their remedy is not by suit, but by application to the county commissioners.

The plaintiffs, having a store and a stock of goods in the defendant town, were liable to be there taxed. If they were improperly taxed for logs, their remedy is by appeal to the county commissioners. Stickney v. Bangor, 30 Maine, 404. Hemingway v. Machias, 33 Maine, 445. Howe v. Boston, 7 Cush. 273. The same rule applies to the erroneous taxation of real estate. Salmond v. Hanover, 13 Allen, 119. The questions here raised were fully determined in Gilpatrick v. Saco, 57 Maine, 277.

Exceptions overruled.

Nonsuit confirmed.

Walton, Dickerson, Barrows, Virgin and Peters, JJ\, concurred.

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

Waite v. Inhabitants of Princeton, 66 Me. 225, 1877 Me. LEXIS 136 (Me. 1877).

66 Me. 225 (Waite v. Inhabitants of Princeton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Edes v. Boardman
58 N.H. 580 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1879)