Case ID: nh_63/html/0122-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Blodgett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Locke v. Pittsfield. Barton v. Shaw & a.
    
    The doctrine of Edes v. Boardman, 58 N. H. 580, applies to the assessment and collection of taxes for school-district purposes.
    Trespass. Both actions were tried by the court. The plaintiff, in opening, stated that the first action is brought to recover $41.83, paid under protest to the collector of Pittsfield, and by him paid over to the treasurer of Pittsfield, for a school-house tax assessed upon the plaintiff in a special assessment, May 29, 1876, upon the annual invoice in that jmar; and that the second action is against the selectmen of Pittsfield and Epsom and the collector of Pittsfield, for the collection of a tax included in the same assessment, the plaintiff in each action claiming the assessment to be illegal. The school-district, on account of which said taxes were assessed, is composed of territory and inhabitants in both of said towns. The plaintiffs admit that if the doctrine of Edes v. Board-man, 58 N. H. 580, applies to the assessment and collection of taxes for school-district purposes, they should be nonsuited. The court ruled that the doctrine of that case does apply, and ordered a nonsuit in each case, to which the plaintiffs excepted.
    
      A. Whittemore, Jr., and J. T". Mugridge, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Chase Streeter and J. II. Albin, for the defendants.
   Blodgett, J.

No reason has been or can be given why Edes v. Boardman does not apply to the assessment and collection of taxes for school-district purposes ; and therefore, according to the agreement of the parties, the nonsuits ordered at the trial term must stand.

Exceptions overruled.

Smith J., did not sit: the others concurred.