Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Heard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover a tax assessed by persons acting as assessors of the plaintiff town on the defendant for the year 1866; submitted to the judgment of the full court on a statement of facts in which it was agreed that, if the fact was competent and material, the defendant could prove that, in electing these persons assessors by ballot at the annual town meeting of that year, the check-list was not used. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
The tax in question was assessed by persons who appear to have acted- under color of an election by the town, evidenced by its records of the proceedings at the annual meeting of the inhabitants, showing that these persons were chosen assessors • and they have taken an official oath as such assessors. They were therefore assessors de facto. The only defect relied upon to prove that they were not assessors de jure is, that the check-list required by our statutes was not used *544in balloting for them. Gen. Sts. c. 7, § 9. St. 1862, c. 180. St. 1868, c. 262. But it is we.i eettled that the validity…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Clark v. Inhabitants of EastonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Splonskofsky v. MintoOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Tyree v. Crystal Dist. Improvement Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Commonwealth v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Gallahue v. NilesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933