Case ID: nh_6/html/0456-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Richardson, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The town of Hudson versus James Tenney and others.
    In an action upon a bond given by a collector of taxes, in order to make him liable for interest, it must appear that he has made use of the money collected, or unreasonably neglected to pay it over.
    In debt upon a bond, if the condition is performed after the commencement of the action, so that upon a hearing in equity execution is awarded only for nominal damages, still the plaintiff » entitled to fall costs. I
    
    
      This was an action of debt upon a bond, the condition of which was, that Tenney should faithfully perform the duty of collector of taxes in Hudson for the year 1829.
    The defendants were defaulted and upon a hearing in equity, it appeared that Tenney had not collected and paid over the taxes, according to the directions in his warrant, but that since the commencement of the suit he had paid over the whole amount committed to him to collect.
    
      C. H. and C. G. Jltherton, for the defendants,
    contended, that as the principal sums had all been paid over, the plaintiffs could be allowed no interest for any detention of the money in the hands of the collector. 2 N. H. Rep. 169 Hodge!on v. Hodgdon.
    
    They also contended, that as nominal damages only could be recovered, the costs ought to be limited.
    
      Farley and Abbot, for the plaintiffs,
    contended, that collectors were bound to collect and pay over all taxes committed to them, according to the directions in their warrants, and that they were chargeable with interest upon all sums not paid over at the times fixed in the warrants.
   Richardson, C. J.

To entitle the town to recover interest, in this case, it must appear either that the collect- or made use of the money, or that having collected the money he unreasonably neglected to pay it over. We are not aware that interest can be allowed in any other cases upon such a bond. 5 B. & P. 205, note; 2 Starkie’s Ev. 787.

Nothing is disclosed, in this case, which shows, that the town is entitled to any interest.

There is no ground for limiting the costs in this case. When the suit was commenced, a considerable part of the taxes remained unpaid.

Execution awarded for $1, and costs.