Town of Middlebury v. Nixon
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of debt upon two penal bonds oí five thous- and dollars each, given by the defendants, as security to the town that said Mixon should faithfully execute the office, and perform the duties, of constable and collector of town-taxes for said town of Middlebury; one for the year commencing in March, 1824, and the other in March, 1825. The declaration alleged several breaches of each bond, in not collecting, accounting for, and paying, sundry taxes included in…
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt upon two penal bonds oí five thous- and dollars each, given by the defendants, as security to the town that said Mixon should faithfully execute the office, and perform the duties, of constable and collector of town-taxes for said town of Middlebury; one for the year commencing in March, 1824, and the other in March, 1825. The declaration alleged several breaches of each bond, in not collecting, accounting for, and paying, sundry taxes included in tax-bills committed to him, the said Mixon, for collection, during said years, accompanied with regular warrants…
1Opinion of the Court
Hutchinson J.
delivered the opinion of the court. The first objection taken to the declaration is, that it counts upon bonds, each of which was taken as security in two distinct offices; whereas, there should have been a separate bond in each case.
This objection supposes that the selectmen must have followed some statute in taking these bonds, if not in form, at least in substance. Hence, it is admitted, that such a bond as these would be good, if it appeared by the declaration that the town had agreed with Nixon to fill the offices of first constable and collector, acr , cording to the 6tk…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Northumberland v. CobleighSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879