Lathrop v. Town of Sunderland
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for the recovery of taxes paid under protest. Heard upon the report of a referee at the June term 1890, Bennington county, Royce, Ch. J., presiding. Judgment proforma for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The tax in question was a school tax assessed by the defendant town against the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the recovery of taxes paid under protest. Heard upon the report of a referee at the June term 1890, Bennington county, Royce, Ch. J., presiding. Judgment proforma for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The tax in question was a school tax assessed by the defendant town against the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that this tax was invalid for the reason that the district within which he resided had never been dissolved and that therefore the town had no right to tax him for the maintenance of schools. The defendant claimed that the district had been dissolved by the adoption…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court "was delivered by
ROSS, Ch. J.
In March, 1886, the town of Sunderland adopted the town system of schools. The plaintiff’s right to recover depends upon whether, by the adoption of the town system, school district No. 1 in that town, in which the plaintiff resided, was dissolved; The character of that district was determined by this court in Bowen v. King, 34 Vt. 156. It is there held to be “ a fixed and permanent union district,” presumably under a special charter from the legislature, “ indissoluble except in the mode pointed out by the statute,” and that it could not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bowen v. KingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
- Pierce v. WhitmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851