The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-04-09
Tax Law Decisions.

lWO ueCibiOuS VI LILO supreme COURT Ht the
late general term, Of cases under the act of
1880, to equalize taxation, are OF interest to
all Taxpayers, and especially to listers in the
discharge Of their official duty. The first,
JOSEPH HowEs vs. GEORGE w. BAssETT,
was tried before the county court and a pro
forna judgment rendered for the defendant
The case came before the supreme court on ex-
ceptions by the plaintiff. Judge Powers, de-
livering the opinion OF the court, rehearsed the
following facts: The plaintiff was liable TO taxa
ton In the town of Barre in 1881. He refused,
on request, to make out and return an inven-
tory OF his taxable property to the listers.
to ascertain, "a best they could, the amount OF
plaintiff 8 taxable property, appraise the same
at its value in money and double the same 30
obtained. The listers found 81, 600 Of taxable
personal estate. They enquired Of sundry per-
that he was reputed to be worth $4,000.
None Of the informants gave the listers any
information as to any particular property, and
the listers, adopting the opinion Of such per-
sons, adjudged that the plaintiff had $4,000
in taxable personal estate, including the 81 800,
doubled the same, and the product was estab-
lished as the plaintiffs list The court de-
cided that the listers were to find the amount
OF taxable property, appraise IL, and double the
person had $4,000 worth of property is no
evidence that the person has that amount of
taxable property. The plaintiffs list beyond
$1,000, was made up wholly of conjecture. 1t
would hardly do, in the absence of statutory
power, to say that list so made up is valid.
We think that the act of 1880 contemplated
that the listers should find property in specie,
capable of appraisal, the value of which they
were authorized to double and set in the list.
The plaintiff appeared before the listers, de-
MED having the $4,000 in taxable property,
and offered to submit to an examination under
oath. The listers refused to give him hear
ing or relief, whereupon he appealed to the
selectmen. The selectmen refused him hear
ing. The act of 1880 declares that the select
men, on appeal, shall give the taxpayer no re-
lief, If IL appears to them that he has violated
any of the provisions Of the act 1t could not
appear that the taxpayer had violated the
provision of the act unless they heard him in
the premises. They denied the plaintiff a sub
stantial right, material to the validity of his list.
The plaintiff list was Illegally made up and af-
fords no justification for the seizure of his prop
erty. Judgment reversed. In the second case,
KILBURN b. WALKER VS.. THE CITY
OF BURLINGTON,
the plaintiff sued the city Of Burlington
to recover money paid, under protest, for
certain taxes on his real estate as set in the
grand list OF Burlington for the year COM
mencing April 1, 1881. The assessors of Bur-
lngton, having completed their labors on the
grand list for 1881, on the 14th day of June Of
that year took, before justice of the peace on
that day, an oath to the following effect: "We
| the real estate situate in the city of Burling-
| ton, and have appraised all additions, and have
made all deductions required by law, according
| to the best Of our information; and that the
| foregoing list contains true statement of the
| aggregate amount OF the taxable personal es-
tate OF each person named In such list, accord
| ing to the best of our information and belief
| So help us God" They did not, however,
sign any such oath, any certificate in respect
| to such oath, nor did the magistrate make any
N " naf nr foo 70 luna
| subscribed or sworn to, until the 29th of Sep
| TENDER, 1881, when the assessors signed the
oath and certificate as recited above; and the
| justice who had administered the oath on the
| 14th of June signed certificate that the oath
was taken by the assessors in June and signed
| by them September 29th. This oath and these
| certificates were then appended to the grand
list of 1881, which had been filed in the city
| clerks office on the 18th Of June preceding.
No other oath or certificate was ever taken or
signed by the assessors, except the preliminary
oath required by the "act to equalize taxa
ton" The plaintiff claimed that this grand
list was not legal and valid as the basis of tax
alton, because it lacked the essential pre-
| requisites of certificate appended thereto,
| signed and sworn to by majority of the asses
sors; and because, further, even If this certif-
| cate had been seasonably signed and sworn
| to, it was not the proper one for that grand
| list. The year 1881 was a year of valuation
| and appraisal of real estate. For such year
a specific form OF certificate is prescribed,
! adapted to the case. The assessors signed and
swore to a certificate prescribed for years
| when there is no valuation Of real estate. The
| defendant claimed that the grand list was COM
| plete without the oath or certificate required
| for the quadrennial grand list. The oath
prescribed for the listers by the new law be-
fore entering upon their duties was very strin-
| gent, and this oath was doubtless substitute
| for the official oath prescribed by the act of
1872. The oath, and certificate thereof, that
the listers had done what they had shortly be-
| fore sworn and certified that they would
| specially do, would be like swearing witness
both before and after he had testified. The
| defendant further claimed that the former law
| had not formulated any oath to be attached to
| the completed list which was adopted to ex-
| press the past performance OF the duties pre-
scribed by the act of 1880. The form given in
the general statutes, " estimating the value of
| such real estate at such sums as we would ap-
praise the same in payment OF just debt due
| from solvent debtor" was not necessarily or
practically the same as "appraising it at its
true value in money" and by no rule of con-
| struction could be imported into the act of
1880. In delivering the opinion of the court
Judge Powers said, in effect that by the act Of
| 1880 the legislature temporarily substituted the
appraisal of April, 1881, for the quadrennial APP
praisal then in force. Quadrennial appraisals
however, were not dbrogdted, but were still
parts of the system of taxation. All lists Of
| taxable estate personal or real, must be duly
| certified and sworn to. Without an attestation
| OF correctness and genuineness, as made per-
suant to law, Taxpayers have no assurance
| that the list Is fair, equal and properly made,
| and that thus their money is taken from them
by due process Of law; and public officials ad-
minsterng the law have no official action of
the listers upon which to base justification
for their doirgs. 1t is said that the prelimin-
airy oath in the act of 1880 covers the whole
ground of official duty imposed upon the list
ers; to insist that the completed list should
| have appended an oath in scope substantially
like such preliminary oath is much like swear
| ing witness before and after he gives his tes.
timony. Prior to the act Of 1880. two oaths
were required by the listers--one before COM
mencing their duties and one verifying the
i grand list. The two oaths are not ordained
for the same purpose. The preliminary oath is
a qualification for office; the subsequent oath
is an authorization Of an official act. The
preliminary oath required by the act of 1880 is
more explicit than the former one of 1872; but
this in no sense changes its purpose or its char
acter as an official qualification. The appraisal
of real estate provided for by the act of 1880 is
not completed until sworn to- As no further re-
visory addition is, under the act Of 1880, to be
had over the appraisal of the listers, it cannot
be taken that the legislature intended to relax
any of the cautionary verifcations which long
usage and the general theory of the law on the
| subject had sanctioned. The act left the listers
| to find the formalties and essentials of such
valuation in the general law applicable TO the
case. In view of the consideration and OF all
the circumstances attending the taking OF the