Watson v. Inhabitants of Princeton
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This action, which was assumpsit for money had and received, was submitted to the court upon a statement of facts, in substance as follows : The plaintiff is an inhabitant of the town of Princeton, and was taxed there in the year 1840, the sum of $76-20, which he paid. Joseph Mason and Moses G. Cheever, inhabitants of said town, were liable to be taxed and were taxed there the same year ; Mason for $ 100, money at interest, and Cheever for no money at interest.
Read the full summary
This action, which was assumpsit for money had and received, was submitted to the court upon a statement of facts, in substance as follows : The plaintiff is an inhabitant of the town of Princeton, and was taxed there in the year 1840, the sum of $76-20, which he paid. Joseph Mason and Moses G. Cheever, inhabitants of said town, were liable to be taxed and were taxed there the same year ; Mason for $ 100, money at interest, and Cheever for no money at interest. On the 1st of May 1840, said Mason held several mortgages to secure the payment of money, upon which mortgages he had taken formal…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
This is an action of new impression. That is no reason, however, why it should not be maintained, if it is founded on legal principles ; but it is a reason why the grounds relied on for its support should be strictly examined.
The action is assumpsit against the town for money had and *601received by them to the use of the plaintiff. The ground is, not that the plaintiff was taxed for more property, or other property, than he was liable for, nor that the tax was laid for a purpose not within the scope of the authority of the town ; but that, through error of judgment, mistake of the law, or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thurston v. LittleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by2 opinions
- Conzelman v. City of BristolSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Hogeland v. RapoportMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2001