Tyler v. Flanders
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trover, for a horse. (Reported in 57 N. H. 618.) The conversion complained of was the sale of the plaintiff’s horse by a collector of taxes, on a tax warrant issued by the defendants and one Hibbard, who was a defendant until his death, which occurred before the last trial had at the February Term, 1877. The present defendants were selectmen defacto and de jure, and Hibbard was a selectman de facto.
Read the full summary
Trover, for a horse. (Reported in 57 N. H. 618.) The conversion complained of was the sale of the plaintiff’s horse by a collector of taxes, on a tax warrant issued by the defendants and one Hibbard, who was a defendant until his death, which occurred before the last trial had at the February Term, 1877. The present defendants were selectmen defacto and de jure, and Hibbard was a selectman de facto. The defendants and Hibbard acted jointly as a board of selectmen in assessing taxes, appointing the collector, and issuing the warrant. The plaintiff contends that Hibbard, by reason of alienage,…
1Opinion of the CourtDob, C. J.
The purchaser of the horse acquired a good title. Smith v. Messer, 17 N. H. 420, 429. The collector is not liable for taking and selling the horse. Roberts v. Holmes, 54 N. H. 560. As between the plaintiff and the town, the plaintiff’s tax was legally assessed and legally collected. The town can keep the money. Hibbard being a selectman de facto, his official title cannot be questioned, in suits between such third persons as the plaintiff and the purchaser, the plaintiff and the collector, the plaintiff and the town. And the question is, not whether Hibbard was liable, but whether the present…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Odiorne v. RandSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
- Laconia v. County of BelknapSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934