Gardiner v. Inhabitants of Brookline
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Appeal, filed May 7, 1900, to the Superior Court, under St. 1890, c. 127, from a refusal of the assessors of the town of Brookline to abate a tax assessed upon the petitioner on May 1, 1899. At the hearing before Stevens, J., it was admitted that the petitioner was liable to taxation on his real estate in Brookline, and on some cows kept there.
Read the full summary
Appeal, filed May 7, 1900, to the Superior Court, under St. 1890, c. 127, from a refusal of the assessors of the town of Brookline to abate a tax assessed upon the petitioner on May 1, 1899. At the hearing before Stevens, J., it was admitted that the petitioner was liable to taxation on his real estate in Brookline, and on some cows kept there. The taxes sought to be abated were a poll tax and a tax on his personal property, the petitioner claiming a domicil at Newcastle in the State of Maine. The judge found in favor of the petitioner; and the respondent alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
The question in this case is whether the petitioner had his domicil in Brookline in this Commonwealth on May 1, 1899, or whether on that day he was domiciled in Newcastle, in the State of Maine. The judge has found as a fact that the petitioner left Brookline in 1887, and went to Newcastle, intending to make the last named place his permanent home, and that he did this with an honest intention to change his domicil or permanent residence from Brookline to Newcastle, with the intention also of making the latter the place of his permanent and real home, as distinguished from a mere place of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hancock v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
- Allen v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Viles v. City of WalthamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Olivieri v. AtkinsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Draper v. Inhabitants of HatfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Rummel v. PetersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Dempsey v. Goldstein Bros. Amusement Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Ferguson v. AshkenazyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Croop v. WaltonIndiana Supreme Court · 1927
- Aste v. Putnam's Hotel Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.