Little v. Greenleaf
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Trespass for false imprisonment. The parties agreed to the following facts: The defendants were assessors for the town of Newburyport, duly chosen and sworn, for the year 1805. On the 18th of September in that year, they assessed a state, county and town tax on the inhabitants of Newburyport, and others liable, &c.
Read the full summary
Trespass for false imprisonment. The parties agreed to the following facts: The defendants were assessors for the town of Newburyport, duly chosen and sworn, for the year 1805. On the 18th of September in that year, they assessed a state, county and town tax on the inhabitants of Newburyport, and others liable, &c. The plaintiff, on the first day of May, ! 905, was an inhabitant of the town of Newbury, in said county, and was then engaged in trade and merchandise in said Newburyport, sc • far as having, on the 19th of April preceding, with one Joseph Patch, hired of one Joseph Marquand two…
1Opinion of the Court
The action stood over for advisement to this term ; and now
The Court
observed, that this action of trespass vi et armis, could not be maintained against the defendants as assessors, *201* if the plaintiff was by law liable to be assessed by them for [ * 240 ] any estate. Certainly not merely because he is overrated. So that the only question to be decided was, Was he liable to be taxed in the town of Newburyport at all ? On this question they had no doubt. He hired a store in that town, and he sold merchandise, and he fitted ships there. For all the stock in trade, which he negotiated and managed…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Edes v. BoardmanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
- Harrington v. GliddenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Board of Com'rs v. Searight Cattle Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1892
- Boston Loan Co. v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Hicks v. Inhabitants of WestportMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.