Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1889-08-22


ls,ely announced decision which shou {
hc Of much interest to tax payers, anc
town officers ,cspcC tally collectors Of taxes
We publish the opinion Of the court ia
Thorudike vs. Camden. written by Jrcy,
Emery. 1t VII be seen that The power Of
towns . mpo~e >c> j. VERY limited. ant
thai town officers a-e held 20 >t.ic, accoun
liability The TOW by vote cannot ntotcc'
Delinquent or >'o'hfu' concc.or.
LtEEIN rduts>oiAs y. I>HNMTt>Ts ur
CAMDEN
krnY. opinion june -. lS9
7o'ca. Toria1 po,-evs. FnUic ohcor>
Hl~Haf rar
The plain,if WIS collector Of 'axc. In the de-
fendaut own fo- he ycar ls-3. and ., .ucl
collector hai proper warrant to colicei
'aN legally s>sc,.t-l s:Au~i par lshe ia
taxation. lie made no ,hnfi To coll,ct THE
sN In money but ;o"k a nate ~ be- par,y
Instead. and accounted 10 The iow u treasurer
Tor Ii = money. Thr note VA, not paid aud
twelve YEAR afterwari the town voted d
icfund 10 The rlsin'f uearly All - the tax
- s,>' ,scd sud paid to The town but never
coiircied.-the same 10 be n >rd ht ss.,---
lntut IN nm aFiiuu upon a vote % The town
tea. thst the town rAn not impose a tax for
such purpose; that the clam l. that Of
public ohcrr 10 rs compensated for io.-
.ufrrel by his urgift ~ = public 1H;y, and
that II :. not incident 20 or connected with
the exercise. by the town, nf 10. l,gsi pow
er..
The tax Ra> a.-'>..-i ,o'tp. knowlion 4 co. -
by " ham ~. nutr Ha- given aud IS hn af,er-
ward ,, smr in>a,trnf Ii was claimed that
h.Y. =. !
crly meant to b, iaXrd belonged to and wa-
IN ihr name Of rorFnra'ion. II. Know tan
Company" mn, ihAi the variation was ~
ihe nam OF The .smr par y. and too ~ Ihi 20
raise question OF identity.
Exceptions on facts agreed
Action Of a>>umpsit on account au-
neNei. The case was ie--c,i - the court,
ihc right 70 except hetu. reserved; ard 1t
ruled that the plaintiff was cuiitlrd 10
Judgment for thr"c hundred and twenty
seven dolla-s with interest from January
!. 1856. Defendants executed 10 the iul-
Ing.
The agreed ,,atomcn, q. facts j. a, fol-
lows
This j an action for the recovery Of
an amount votru by The luwa - he paid 10
the plaini'tf AMI interest on same
II j. agreed that plIiniIf was collector
~ taxes Of slid town fur the wear 1873.
and that among the yaIious taxes entru>t-
ed to him for collection for that year was
one against II huowlion Co. amounting
10 more than three hundr. 4 dollars: that
he failed 10 collect Of them portion Of
>a'd tax. amounting 10 thrrr hundred and
sixteen aud G-lt0 dollars except tn take
The note of said u. kuoWitou q Co run
uiug tn himself that said note was never
paid 20 him or any part Thereof owing 10
the Insolvency of said u kuowlton q 60 ;
that the plain'f suppo>ing said notc to be
cClablc paid The amount Of the same
into the town treasurer for the sali town
of Camden; that he did not. ~ collec tor .
attempt 70 enforce any potion Of SAID tax
against the real estate OF said company a.
the tax Was assessed 10 u. knowltnn 4 Co.
while the property meant 20 BE- taxed h..
longed to and was In the name ~ u
knowlton Company. corporation. there
being no snch party as u knowlton 4 Co :;
that in l>>j. at the annual mectin. Of said
defendant town. on an article of the fol
lowing tenor, Ia wit
Art Slst. To 80 Il the towu wll vot.
to refund 10 LarkIn Thorndikc so much Of
the lax assessed 10 II. knowlton 4 Co in
ls73 as was paid TO the town hut never
collected, amounting To three hundred and
sixteen dollars and SIX cents ana interest
on same, also what sum Of money they
vii! vote 10 raise 10 pay the sane. ii was
voted a. follows
Art 3lsi Voted that the sclcCt men b,,
authorized to pay Larkin Thorndikc the
sum of three hundred dollars $500 the
same 10 be raised by assessment that this
sum was early in the year l>~j demand
ed of the >clectmen of said town but has
never been paid 70 The plant Il nor az
se>>ed by sand town Luke pham pro-
tested against the payment OF said sum
which was recorded. The taxes on the
property OF ID. knowlton Company, cor
poratlon, for years 1872 and 1877 were as
sessed IN the name Of ID. knowlton & Go.
aud paid 10 collector"
}. II. Montgomery, for plaintiff
The court found for the plaintiff and as
sesscd the damages. There were no con
troverted points of law upon which the
court was required to rule. Il was simply
questions of fact. These were settled IN
favor of the plaintiff and are conclusive.
No exceptions in Curtis V. Dowues. 81
Maine. "a; Mccarthy V. Mansfield, sc
Maine, 53s; Treat V. Gilmore, - Maine
34 Berry V. johnson. 50 Maine, 40l Keen
Y. Jordan, 50 Maine. IA.
The onl, objection made to the main
tenance Of this action is the consideration
for the vote Of the town.
Growing out of its authority To create
debts and incur liabilities, a municipal cor
poration has power to settle disputed
claims against it and an agreement to pay
these is not void for waut of considera.
ton" Dillon Nun. Corp. Az.
"A vote by a town Is in law promise
.iar k..o IA TO-, ,
is a foundation for an action" Nelson v
Milford, Pick. IS, %.
The plaintiff in this case was collector
of taxes for defendant town, having a taa
for collection, the legality Of the assess
ment of which was questionable, by not
having properly designated the owner OF
the properly taxed The note taken by
the plaintiff was not collectable for two
reasons.
(lst) The insolvency of the company
ed Because there was no such party
as d. knowlton & Co.
The collector paid the amount of the tax
thus improperly assessed, or large poI
tion of it, into the town, without cleaI
and definite idea OF what were his lega
rights and duties. The assessment of the
tax and the insolvency of the assessed and
the general complications of the affair
were not apparent TO the town officers oil
the plaintiff at the time the money was
paid in. The town saw this state of ar
fairs and voted to relieve the plaintiff
The consideration is sufficient and binds
the town. Nelson v. Milford. Pick. Is,
25; Bean v. Jay, 90 Maine, III, l2l.
T. r. Simonton, T. A. Hunt, with him
for defendants.
Defendants had no authority to make
the alleged contract, or raise money fol
such purpose. Specific purposes fol
which they can raise money. r. s., c. 3
i6. 1t was gift to the plaintiff The
vote exceeded the rights vested in towns
TO assess and collect money, and subjec
to injunction. Dyar v. Pennington Village
Corp, 10 Maine, SIS, 522. Had the ia,
been assessed, any inhabitant. obliged to
pay his proportional part, could have re
covered it back with interest at 25 pei
cent. r. S., C. 6, 5 l42. Vote unconsti
tutiona'. Otherwise, such votes might bt
continued until the whole property, held
by citizens of the town, had passed into
and out of the treasury, until the equaliza
tion of property had been effected" Aller
" Jay, 60 Maine, l24. the constitution
gives no authority to 'aise money TO give
away. Perkins v. Milford, SO Maine, 3l5
3IS.
Emery, J. This case is presented by
the defendants exceptions to the rulins
of the presiding justice awarding judg
p,apt for vIaiufiH on an Qprpad statement