Case ID: johns_12/html/0412-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Thompson, Ch. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ryder against Cudderback and Coleman.
    tiv4hto mmmon" |=h°°ls-24Isses| autoo^izfs 2'th'i 5chooita°diátHct 4oteTetaxa4n habitants of purpose f°ofthe >oúse”&ca&c01 to choose true-tees, who are.to raise the sum voted by anassessment, “on ?ii the taxable gieeaMe^to the ni? t™naltm .^tatheainhabr dkMetip»^1 ,..the. trustees ‘ assessment, ^aievy of the .town tax for the which a18’who iiihabitan4?ofthe ti°me°’ the1, tax uoat aTOtre4ídéñt bftlStal>lin Jnthe assessed his 18 .proportion. It was held that tiA taprcc'e%,4 Star must hé understood, ac-general law recollection or tü4 y4atr°en,din| ™ ^Avgmt, and m|4tofeth4struT theieforeí" coi Tect"
    THIS was an action of trespass, for taking and carrying away. a yoke of oxen,, belonging to the plaintiff.
    Gn tile l2tb/of March,. .I'8í4, Williarri. Leyiis,. by yi?tn£ of warrant-directed to himby'the'défendantSj and G. Bailey¡ jun.as trustees of 'thé twenty-seventh school district, i'ii the town of Pompey, in the county of Onondaga, took from-the plaintiff, a yoke of Oxen, which were regularly advertised for sale for six-days, and sold at public auction. ,on the 19th of March, 1814, „ _ ¿ * _^A , ' . . . ' • tor 67 dollars. 1 he warrant was regular, bearing date March .• , - ¿ - ° . H), 1814, having a regular tax list annexed' to it-, to' raise thfe sum' . ° v of 175 dollars, wiih five cents on each dollar,: for the. collector’s:^ces 5 and which tax list contained the name of the plaintiff, and the amount of his tax.. ■ 1 . •.
    At a meeting of the inhabitants of the said school district, pursuaht to public notice lor that purpose, on the third Tuesday of Septembery 181-3, -the defendants, and- Clark Bailey, were duly elected trustees, and William ■Leváis, clerk, and the site for a schoolhouse tobe erected, was fixed, and one hundred and seventy-five dollars agreed to be raised for that purpose. • And * ° .. ¿ 1 at a regular' meeting of the inhabitants of the ..'district,.- on the 24th of Jaimary, Í8Í4, it,was. resolved that the tax.-for building/,. die sfchool house, should be made, according to the -last spring assessment,' as: the town 'taxes were"; and- at a legal meeting or? the 25th of January, it was voted that the money lor building the school house should be raised by a tax, according to the last i . * • spring’s assessment.
    It appeared that the plaintiff was not a taxable, inhabitant-.- of A 1 • . ’ . ■ _ ’ JA.. , . the town of Pompey, m the year 1812, and that, ms name was not on. the tax list of -the town, for that year; but the plaintiff wasi on and before the third Tuesday of September, 18.13, a taxa-" ble inhabitant of-the said district, and. continued so to' be únt-il after the 19 th of March, 1814. ,
    The defendants made, up" their tax list, for the said, district, from the tax- list, of the said town for the year 1813, in which" tax list was the. plaintiff’s name, and his estate .assessed at 1,819 •dollars,; and- the defendants directed the collector to collect from the plaintiff, 39 dollars and 9 cents, which was the sum he was legally liable to pay, agreeable to the levy, on which the town tax whs raised in the year 1813, provided the said school-tax list ought to have been made from the town-tax list of that year.
    It was agreed that if the court should be of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, a judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for 67 dollars; but if the court should be in favour of the defendant, a judgment of nonsuit was to be entered.
    
      Sabin, for the plaintiff.
    
      Kellogg, contra.
   Thompson, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. This is an action of trespass, de bonis asportatis, brought against the defendants, as trustees of the twenty-seventh school district, in the town of Pompey, and county of Onondaga ; who have issued a Warrant to collect a tax laid on the district, and under which the plaintiff’s property, which is now in question> was taken and sold. The only irregularity complained of, and relied upon, in support of the present action, is, that the tax ought to have been laid according to the tax list of 1812, and not of 1813 ; and if so, that the plaintiff was improperly assessed, as he was not a taxable inhabitant of the district in 1812.

It is not easy to discover the reason or necessity for the various votes that appear to have been taken in relation to the tax in question, some of which were in the fall of 1813, and others in the winter of 1814. It is, however, no more than a fair and liberal interpretation of the proceedings of the meeting of September, 1813, to say, that the tax was then voted. There is no form prescribed by the statute, in which the question for raising the money shall be presented to the voters. The vote, as entered in the minutes of the meeting, was, that 175 dollars be appropriated for building a school house, and the vote of the 24th of the same month, of September, shows it was to be raised by tax. I assume, .therefore, that the tax was voted in September, 1813, which is putting the plaintiff’s case on the strongest ground. The question then is, according to what tax list should the assessment have been made ? The act directs, that after/the district meeting have voted a tax, the trustees shall proceed to apportion the same on the taxable inhabitants of said district, according . _ ■ to the tax list of the, preceding year. (1 N. R. L. 262. s. 8.) gy tile general law relative to the assessment and collection of taxes, (2 N. R. L. 510.,) the assessment roll is to be completed' by the 1st of August in each year. When, therefore, the statute in relation to school districts speaks of the tax list of the preceding year, it must be understood as referring to the year ending in August, when the general assessment is to.be completed ; and must be so construed, as if, instead of the preceding year, it had said the preceding tax list. It would be absurd to suppose the legislature intended to pass over one tax list, and regulate the assessment according to the list of a prior date. The plaintiff was a taxable inhabitant of this district in September, 1813, when the money was voted to "be raised ; and there can be no possible reason why he should not bear his proportion. The trustees were, then, correct in regulating their assessment by the tax list of 1813; and, if so, it is admitted that the proceedings were regular, and that there are no grounds upon which the present action can be maintained. Judgment of nonsuit must, accordingly, be entered, pursuant to. the stipulation in the case.

Judgment of nonsuit»