Case ID: mass_15/html/0464-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Inhabitants of Belgrade versus The Inhabitants of Sidney.
    A collector of taxes for a school district is a collector of taxes for the purpose of gaining a settlement in the town.
    Assumpsit for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in the support of one Lavinia Savage, a pauper, alleged to have her settlement in Sidney. .
    
    The cause was tried, upon the general issue, in the Court of Common Pleas; and it was admitted that the settlement of the pauper, if she had any, was derived from her grandfather, Joseph Savage. It was proved that the said Joseph, in the year 1795, was chosen by the town of Sidney a collector of taxes for a certain school district; that he had a regular warrant, and bills committed to him to collect; and that he remained in Sidney more than one municipal year after he was authorized to collect, and had * his warrant and bills committed to him, capable of discharging the duties of his office.
    The Court of Common Pleas instructed the jury that, upon these facts, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover; and a verdict being returned accordingly, the counsel for the defendants filed exceptions to the said directions, and brought the action to this Court, undei the statute of 1817, c. 185.
    
      Mellen for the plaintiffs.
    
      Williams for the defendants.
   Curia.

By the sixth mode of gaining a settlement, as established by the statute of 1793, c. 34, any person being chosen, and actually serving one whole year in the office of constable, or collector of taxes, in any town or district, shall thereby gain a settle ment therein.

In this case, the pauper’s grandfather was, in the year 1795, chosen a collector of a certain school district in Sidney; and by the records, which have been recurred to by consent, it appears that he was sworn into office; and it is agreed that the warrant for collecting the tax was committed to him, and that he remained in the town, capable of executing the office, for more than a year.

But it is objected that he was not a collector within the meaning of the statute ; which, it is supposed, intended only the collector of state, town, and county taxes.

We see no reason, however, for thus restricting the term. The object of the legislature was, to give a settlement to such of the inhabitants as, by the suffrages of the town, should appear to be persons worthy of confidence, and of spfficient substance to have all the rights of habitancy. Towns may, and frequently do, elect more than one collector, and divide the taxes among them. They may commit the state tax to one, and the town tax to another ; and so they may, for convenience, appoint a collector for each school district. When thus appointed, these last are officers of the town, and receive their authority from the warrant of the assessors, in the same manner as other collectors.

Judgment affirmed.