Case ID: mass_7/html/0368-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen Minot versus James Curtis and Others.
    A poll parish is within the statute of 1786, c. 10, § 5, which provides that the remaining part of a town, from which a parish is taken, shall constitute the first parish.
    A parish may be known by several corporate names.
    Trespass for taking and carrying away the plaintiff’s horse.
    The parties submitted the action to the decision of the Court upon an agreed case, from which it appears, that one Smith Batch-elder, as a collector of taxes, by virtue of a tax-bill to him committed, in which the plaintiff was assessed the sum of one dollar and eighty-four cents, and of a warrant under the hands and seals of the defendants, styling themselves assessors of the Congregational parish in Brunswick, took the horse mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration, and sold the same at public auction, having previously advertised it according to law ; — That the town of Brunswick was incorporated in the year 1738 ; — That, by the statute of 1802, c. 85, sundry persons therein named, “ with their families and estates, were incorporated into a religious society, by the name of the Baptist Society in Brunswick, with all the powers, privileges, and immunities, to which other parishes are entitled by the constitution and laws of this commonwealth, for religious purposes only; ” — That the body styling itself the first parish in Brunswick, without having been incorporated, have, since the passing the act above mentioned, warned and held their meetings generally by the name of the [ * 442 ] first parish in Brunswick; — sometimes * by the name of the first Congregational parish or religious society in Brunswick; sometimes by the name of the Congregational parish in Brunswick; and sometimes by the name of the first religious society in Brunswick; by which last name they were called in the warrant for calling the meeting when the money was voted to be raised, which was assessed in the bills committed to said collector, wherein the plaintiff was assessed, and for the satisfaction whereof his horse was taken and sold as aforesaid ; — That there has never been a minister settled over the body calling itself the first religious society in Brunsioick; — That the plaintiff is not of the denomination of Baptists, nor has he complied with the forms required by the act aforesaid, to constitute him a member of the Baptist society in Brunswick, although he has, with his family, for more than six years, attended public worship with' that society, and has never, during that time, attended any of the meetings of the first religious society, so called; — That he has, during said six years, contributed annually to the support of the settled minister of the Baptist society a larger sum than was assessed on him as above stated; the said minister deriving his support solely from the voluntary contribution of his hearers ; — That the plaintiff was an inhabitant of Brunswick, when the said Baptist society was incorporated ; and so continued until the said tax was assessed, at which time he owned real and personal estate in said town ; — That the meeting, at which said tax was voted, and at which the defendants were chosen assessors, and said Batch-elder collector, were duly notified and warned, unless the style used by them should be considered by the Court sufficient to invalidate the proceedings; — That the said assessors and collector were duly chosen and sworn ; — That the said tax was duly assessed, and the sum assessed upon the plaintiff was his just proportion thereof; if, on the facts agreed, he was liable to be taxed at all by the defend ants ; — That he was duly notified of said tax, and the same was regularly demanded of him twelve days before his horse was taken as aforesaid, — * And that he refused to pay [ * 443 ] the same ; and the said horse was sold for the purpose of satisfying said tax.
    If, upon the facts agreed, the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff had maintained his action, the defendants agreed that judgment should go against them by default for twenty-one dollars damage, with costs ; otherwise the plaintiff was to become nonsuit, and the defendants recover their costs.
    
      Emery, for the plaintiff,
    contended that the society, under which the defendants assumed their authority as assessors, had so varied their corporate name from time to time, that they could not be said to have any fixed name at all; and in the case here, the meeting at which the defendants were chosen, was of the first religious society, while the defendants in their tax-bill and warrant call themselves the assessors of the congregation parish. A corporation can be known in law only by its name, and one which is thus constantly shifting its name cannot be known at all.
    
      Longfellow, for the defendants,
    argued that the statute of 1786, c. 10, § 5, in enacting that, in towns where one or more parishes shall be set off therefrom, the remaining part of the town shall con stitute a distinct parish or precinct, and shall be considered as fine principal or first parish, was not intended to give a precise corporate name to such remaining part. In the declaration of rights, prefixed to the constitution of the commonwealth, the words “ parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies,” are used as synonymous ; and the law is equally conformed to by using any one of those names, or sometimes one and sometimes the other. There was no danger of a mistake, since the other parishes would of course have, their corporate names fixed and established by the acts incorporating them.
    It has been suggested that a parish thus made of individuals living in different parts of a town, and which has obtained the L * 444 ] name of a poll parish, is not within the statute *of 1786 ; but the expressions of the statute comprehend such a parish, as well as one described by a single territorial line ; and there is no reason of expedience to confine it to one description, to the exclusion of the other.
    
      Emery, in reply.
    The statute has expressly fixed and established the corporate name by which the remaining part of a town shall be called and known, and it has no right or authority to assume any other name. “ It shall he considered as the first parish or precinct.”
    
   By the Court.

We are all of opinion that the creating a poll parish is as much within the intention of the legislature in the statute referred to, as the erecting of a parish circumscribed by one continuous line, and in which all the lands shall join and be contiguous to each other. As to the fact of this parish having used several names in its public proceedings, we know not why corporations may not be known by several names, as well as individuals. If this point had been before the jury as a question of fact, the defendants would have been held to prove the identity of the parish thus acting under different names. But in the case at bar, that identity is agreed. The defendants are then entitled to judgment.

Plaintiff nonsuit.