Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-07-23
IMPORTANT oeclslos II TAX eAss.


sSUSs
The law court has just rendered de-
cision in an Interesting and important
case In Lincoln county. arising over the
taxation OF the estate OF che late Gen.
eral Samuel J. Bridge whose home was
in Dresden. but who was we'll known Ia
many OF the older residents in this
city.
General Bridge died in November,
1898. leaving a will OF which his
nephew. Edmund Bridge OF Boston. was
made executor. The assessors of Dres-
den assessed the estate In April, 1894,
at a valuation of $500. the same
amount as in previous years. and the
executor paid TIE tax. In July, 1894,
the executor filed an inventory in the
probate court showing the amount OF
estate to be $685.. 3O3.94, and thereupon
in November. 1894, the assessors levied
supplemental tax upon $359, 503.94. be-
ing the full amount of the inventory
less the $500 assessed the previous
April. and made the assessment against
Samuel J. Bridge, estate off,
This supplemental valuation nearly
equaled the valuation Of the entire
town Of Dresden as made up In April
1894. and the amount of the supple
mental tav fhey dam ~ tha axaa
utor was $7s.3C9.s3. 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
counsel. Messrs Drummond 4 Drum
mond Of Portland and the executor
was represented by Leslie c. Cornish.
ESD. Of this city and Geo. Il. Sawyer.
Esq. Of Wiscasset. who defended on
the two grounds sustained by the court.
The case was reported to the law court
in April. 1885, and decision has Just
been rendered in favor OF the defend
ant
The rescript is as follows:
:, Lincoln. IS: Inhabitants OF Dresden VS..
Edmund Bridge. executor. Rescript
Strout j.
This is an action to recover tax upon
personal estate assessed to Samuel j.
Bridge. estate Of" for the year 1884
In April 1894. after the death of Samuel
J. Bridge and the appointment of IN.
defendant as his executor rne assessors
OF the plaintiff town adjudgcd the per-
sonal estate of Samuel j. Bridge, In
gross which WAS liable to taxation to be.
$Sss0 dollars. tho list of the personal es-
late having been furnishedD. and assessed
a tax upon that valuation which has been
paid. ON Nov ~, 1881. the assessors made
4 supplemental assessment upon personal
properly of the estate, in gross. of the
amount of 1859 .503.i. and certified to the
collector IN their eommt,al of tne tax
that that estate was omitted from the
April assessment '.by mistake
The statutes provide hat when any
assessors, after completing the assess
ment of tax, discover that they have
by mistake omitted any polls or estate
liable TO be assessed they may during
their term Of office. by a supplement- TO
an invoice and valuation. and the list of
assessments, assess such polls and es-
tate
The statute also provides. that after no
tice to bring in lists of taxable property
If no list is furnished .fhe assessors shall
the nature amount and value of the
tate 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 J. Bridge liable to be
taxed at $3.50. This valuation was in
gross. and not of specific items of per-
Sonal estate.
The assessors subsequently learned that
their valui ton was too low. They had
not omitted any item ''by mistake" but
had undervalued the gross amount The
omission" mentioned in ahe statute does
not mean that an erroneous Judgment of
the value OF an estate can be corrected
by supplemental assessment. In April.
the assessors had estimated the value of
the personal estate, as a whole and ex-
hausted their power. They could not
afterward enlarge that estimate under
the form of a supplemental assessment.
They had omitted nothing in April. they
then taxed the personal estate; they at
tempted tow re-tax it in November: they
had no legal authority to do 50. The
supplemental assessment was unauthor-
izel by law.
The supplemental tax was assessed to
IS imuel j. Bridge, estate Of The stat
ute provides that 1.-THE personal property
of deceased persons in the hands of their
executors or administrators not distrib-
uted. shall be assessed to the executors
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
tnc property of the deceased in his hands.
This suit is SO brought. But to subject
tho defendant to a personal liability, the
tax must be assessed against him. So
held in Fairfield VS.. Wooaman. 70 Me-.
si9. This tax was not assessed against
the defendant and he is not liable there
for.
Judgment for defendant.