Packard v. Tisdale
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the ruling of appleton, J. This was an action of assumpsit, by the plaintiff as collector of taxes for the town of Ellsworth, to recover of the defendant $286, the balance of his tax remaining unpaid.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the ruling of appleton, J. This was an action of assumpsit, by the plaintiff as collector of taxes for the town of Ellsworth, to recover of the defendant $286, the balance of his tax remaining unpaid. The plaintiff had leave to amend, subject to the defendant’s objection, by the addition of another count as follows : "also, for that said plaintiff was collector of taxes for said town of Ellsworth, and acting in said capacity for the year of our Lord 1856, and as such, had in his hands for collection, a tax assessed for said year upon real estate, taxed to said Tisdale in said…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Appleton, C. J.
The general rule is well established that the collector of taxes cannot compel their payment by suit except in those cases in which the right of action is given by statute. Andover Turnpike v. Gould, 6 Mass., 4; Crapo v. Stetson, 8 Met., 393; Shaw v. Peckett, 26 Vermont, 482.
If the plaintiff had paid the defendant’s taxes at his previous request, ho might have recovered the amount thus paid. So, if taxes are paid by mistake, by one not the owner of the land taxed, and the owner promise to pay, the promise and the benefit will be held…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jarvis v. BlanchardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Denny v. LincolnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
3Cited by8 opinions
- Raynsford v. PhelpsMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- State v. PiazzaMississippi Supreme Court · 1889
- Brule County v. KingSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
- Hardesty v. PriceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1877
- Hulitt v. BellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.