Knowles v. City of Boston
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The first case was an action of contract to recover the amount of a betterment tax assessed by the board of aldermen of the city of Boston upon the real estate of the plaintiff, on October 7, 1872, for the widening and extension of Shawmut Avenue in said city, and alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff after a protest by him in writing.
Read the full summary
The first case was an action of contract to recover the amount of a betterment tax assessed by the board of aldermen of the city of Boston upon the real estate of the plaintiff, on October 7, 1872, for the widening and extension of Shawmut Avenue in said city, and alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff after a protest by him in writing. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Pitman, J.,'who found the following facts: In September 1873, the following notice in writing was sent to the plaintiff by the treasurer of the defendant city: “Having duly made demand for the payment of…
1Opinion of the CourtSoule, J.
The assessment in each case was invalid, because made by the board of aldermen instead of by the street commissioners. Bigelow v. Boston, 123 Mass. 50. The assessment was merely the assessment of a local tax for a local benefit. Harvard College v. Boston, 104 Mass 470. Prince v. Boston, 111 Mass. 226. The amount paid cannot, however, be recovered *553back, unless it appears that it was paid after a notice of a sale of the real estate, or a protest by the person paying in writing. Gen. Sts. e. 12, § 56. The plaintiffs recognize this; and it is alleged in the declaration in each action, that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Prince v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Bigelow v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wheatland v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Wynn v. Board of AssessorsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- 17-21 Hanover Street, Inc. v. City of BostonMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1947