The Portland daily press., 1897-07-24
THE ESTATE OF GEN. BRIDGE.
A Decision for the Executor in the Sui
Brought by the Town of Dresden

The law court has just rendered decis-
ion in an interesting and important case
in Lincoln county, arising over the taxa
ton of the estate of the late General
Samuel j. Bridge whose home was In
Dresden.
General Bridge died in November, 1898,
leaving will of which his nephew, Ed
mund Bridge of Boston, was made execu-
tor. The assessors of Dresden assessed
the estate in April, 1894, at q valuation
of SSSOu, the same amount as In previous
wears. and the executor paid the tax. In
.JuIv 1894, the executor filed an inventory
in the probate court showing the amount
of estate to be 1868, 303 a. and thereupon
in November, 1894, the assessors levied a
supplemental tax upon 1859, 503.94, being
the full amount of the inventory less the
$500 assessed the previous April, and
made the assessment against Samuel j.
Bridge, estate OF. -
This supplemental valuation nearly
equaled the valuation of the entire town
of Dresden as made up in April, 1894, and
the amount of the supplemental tax they
demanded of the executor was nearly equal
to the entire tax of the town for that
year. This the executor declined to pay.
An action was brought by the town
against the executor through their coun-
sci, Messrs. Drummond & Drummond of
Portland, and the executor was represent
ed by Leslie G. Cornish, Esq, of Augusta
and Geo. B. Sawyer, ESQ.,, of Wiscasset,
who defended on the two grounds sus-
tanned by the court. The case was report
ed to the law court in April 1896. and a
L. hoar r.or,d fox>s
of the defendant.
After reciting the facts, the rescr1pt by
Judge Strout says:
The statutes provide that "when any
assessors. after competi ng the assessor nent
OF tax, discover that they have by mis-
take omitted any polls or estate, liaE,le to
be assessed, they may during their term
of office, by supplement to an invoice
and valuation, and the list of alisess-
ments, assess such polls and estate.
The statute also provides, that after
notice to bring in lists of taxable proper
ty, if no list is furnished, 1.-THE assessors
shall ascertain. otherwise as nearly as may
be, the nature, amount and value OF the
estate real and personal, for which in
their Judgment he is liable to be taxed
No list having been furnished the as
SCISSORS in April, 1894, they in accordance
with the statute adjudged the personal
estate of Samuel ]. Bridge liable to be
taxed at $500. This valuation was in
gross, and not of specific items of per-
sonal estate.
The assessors subsequently learned that
their valuation was too low. They had
not omitted any item by mistake,
but had undervalued the gross amount.
The ssomission" mentioned in the statute
does not mean that an erroneous judg-
ment of the value of an astate can be cor
rected by supplemental assessment. In
April, the assessors had estimated the
value of the personal estate, as whole,
and exhausted their power. They could
not afterward enlarge that estimate IN
der the form of a supplemental assess
ment They had omitted nothing in
April: they then taxed the personal es-
tate; they attempted to re-tax it in Mo-
vember; they had no legal authority to
do so, The supplemental assessment was
Unauthorized by law.
Us The supplemental tax was assessed to
"Samuel J. Bridge, estate of. The
statute provides that tive personal prop
erty of deceased persons in the hands of
their executors or administrators not
distributed, shall be assessed to the exec
utors or administrators.
Such assessment renders the executor or
administrator personally liable for the
tax. For such tax suit may be brought
against him personally, and not against
the property of the deceased in his hands.
This suit is SO brought. But to subject
the defendant to personal Inability, the
tax must be assessed against him. Sc
held in Fairfield VS. Woodman, rs Me-,
$40. This tax was not assessed against
+hesdefendant and he is not liable there,
or.
Judgment for defendant