Creamer v. Inhabitants of Bremen
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions by Plaintiee. This was an action to recover back money paid for a tax claimed to have been illegally assessed and claimed to have been paid under protest. The facts appear in the opinion. On April 1, 1893, when the tax was assessed, the plaintiff occupied Storer’s wharf in Bremen in the manner and for the purposes contemplated by the statute under which we justify, and no action to recover it back can be maintained.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions by Plaintiee. This was an action to recover back money paid for a tax claimed to have been illegally assessed and claimed to have been paid under protest. The facts appear in the opinion. On April 1, 1893, when the tax was assessed, the plaintiff occupied Storer’s wharf in Bremen in the manner and for the purposes contemplated by the statute under which we justify, and no action to recover it back can be maintained. The plaintiff was for the time being, the owner of the wharf for the purpose of piling his wood upon it. There was no distinct part of the wharf assigned to him, but…
1Opinion of the CourtWiswell, J.
The plaintiff, an inhabitant of the town of Waldoboro, was the owner, on the first day of April, 1893, of a quantity of fire-wood piled upon a wharf and upon the adjacent shore, in the defendant town, for which he was taxed in that year by the assessors of that town. Having paid the tax under protest he seeks in this action to recover it. At the trial, after the plaintiff’s testimony was closed, the presiding justice, for the purpose of giving progress to the case and in order to have certain questions determined .by the law court, deemed it expedient to order a non-suit, which was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Berry v. DaigleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
- Drummond v. Maine Employment Security CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1961