Dickinson v. Inhabitants of Brookline
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for taxes for the year 1899, paid under protest on the ground that the plaintiff was not an inhabitant of Brookline on May 1 of that year. Writ dated April 21, 1900. In the Superior Court Stevens, J. refused to order a verdict for the plaintiff and submitted the case to the jury, who returned a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, C. J.
This case comes here upon exceptions to a refusal to direct a verdict for the plaintiff. The technical answer to such a request is obvious, that the jury may not believe the plaintiff’s testimony. But in this case the testimony, which came wholly from the plaintiff himself, was so perfectly candid that the counsel for the defendant very properly did not rely upon a merely technical answer but argued that the plaintiff’s statement at least was consistent with the verdict for the defendant, and that the refusal of the ruling was right on that ground.
It is an action to recover taxes paid under…
2Cited by20 opinions
- TEXAS v. FLORIDA Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Dorrance's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- In Re the Estate of TrowbridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- In Re DorranceNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1934
- State Ex Rel. Sathre v. MoodieNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1935
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.