Case ID: mass_64/html/0056-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sophronia Cooley & others vs. Inhabitants of Granville.
    Towns have no authority to assess taxes and raise money for the purpose of abating a particular class of taxes; and, therefore, have no right to appropriate the interest of the surplus revenue for the payment of poll-taxes.
    Bill in equity, in which the complainants, ten in number, described themselves as citizens of the town of Granville and tax payers therein, liable to be assessed and to pay taxes in that town. The bill set forth that at a legal town meeting of the inhabitants of Granville, held therein on the 2d day of April, 1849, it was voted, that the interest of the surplus revenue deposited with that town, in pursuance of St. 1837, c. 85, § 1, should apply in payment of the poll-taxes of the male inhabitants thereof, and the collector was duly directed by the town, and by the selectmen thereof, to deduct from the poll-tax of the persons so assessed, the sum of sixty cents upon each of the said taxes, which he accordingly did. And, also, that the said inhabitants, at a legal town meeting held on the first Monday of April, 1850, did again vote that the interest of the surplus revenue should be applied towards the payment of the poll-taxes of the male in habitants of the said town, and the selectmen of the town did, in pursuance of said vote, direct the collector not to collect the whole of said poll-tax, but to abate and remit the sum of fifty-eight cents upon each of said taxes, which the collector there afterwards proceeded to do. The complainants farther alleged that the said votes were passed, and directions given, contrary to their wishes, and against their remonstrance; and the prayer of the bill was, that the respondents might be restrained from such appropriation. The respondents filed an answer, in which they admitted the material allegations in the bill; and a temporary injunction was granted.
    This case was argued and determined as of the September term, 1851.
    
      W. G. Bates, for the complainants.
    
      G. Ashmun, for the respondents.
   By the Court.

This case comes before the court on a bill filed by ten or more tax payers and is founded on statutes 1837, c. 85, and 1839, c. 60. It is set down by the complainants, to be heard on bill and answer. The question, for what purposes towns are authorized to assess taxes and raise money, is well discussed in Allen v. Taunton, 19 Pick. 485. It is not easy to draw the line with entire precision; but we are of opinion that, for the purpose of abating taxes, especially a particular class of taxes, towns cannot raise money by taxation ; that consequently the interest of the surplus revenue could not be thus lawfully appropriated, and therefore that the bill should be sustained, and the injunction made perpetual

Decree accordingly.