The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1902-06-26
William Bracket vs.. / CLANCY
Holt

william Bracket vs.. J. CLANCY
This case WAS tried at the June term
of the municipal court of the town Of
Skowhegan, .. K. Bachelor, justice pre-
siding. +. l.. Ames, Esq.. and l. K.
Folsom, Ell Of Norrdgewock appeared
for the plaintiff and Forrest Goodwin,
Esq. Of skowhegan for the defendant
This Is an action brought by William
Bracket, collector Of taxes in the town
of Norridge TO recover of the de-
PENDANT a tax Of So 80 assessed on real
estate in 1901. The defense Is payment.
1t appears that in the bills committed
to the collector in 1901, there were taxes
to the amount Of Slls 10 against seven
persons the defendent one of them ia
the employ Of Hesgan 4 Groves who
then worked the DodHn Hill Stone
Quarry.
Along in February last, Bracket was
pressing these men for heir taxes and
they we're pressing Heagan * Groves
("ho were owing them for work. for
money with which TO pay their taxes.
About that time, Bracket and Groves
met, and Groves took the NAMES Of these
sevel men and each ones tax. and the
giving of check by Heagan Il Groves
10 Bracket for the amount of these
taxes WAS talked over. Afterwards, on
February 18Th, Heagan q Groves drew
their check on the Messalonskee Nation
al Bank, payable to the order OF William
Bracket, for Sis. 10 and charged each
Of the seven men with the amount Of
! his tax, as put into the check and de-
Quoted it from the next payment. The
check was carried to Bracket, the col
lector, he received 1t and February l.
| 1902, signed receipts to each Of these
seven men for the full amount Of their
taxes and delivered them to Heagan Il
Groves, and they to the men to whom
they belonged.
In the meantime, Bracket, without
any laches on his part, put the check
into the bank, and 10 due course of bus.
mess it was protested and came back
into the hands Of Bracket. After that
on the 2lst day of March last, one Gran
vile Durrill, clerk for Bracket & Rus.
sell, by direction Of his employers, went
to the quarry, Heagan Il Groves place
of business, with load OF grain or feed,
taking with him a bill of Bracket Il
Russelfs store account against Heagan
! & Groves. and also the protested check
Of SllS.l0. Durrill discharged his load
and then went into the Office and asked
for the money In payment of both check
and bill or account. Heagan & Groves
were both present. Not having the
money, but check of 3103 IS that was
perfectly good (and has been paid they
turned that out as they both testify, to
go in part payment of the protested
check of Sl1S.10 Durrill took the
| Sl03.88 check to Bracket & Russell,
who took it and credited it to Heagan &
Groves on store account, and the plain
tiff now brings this action under the pro-
visions of Sec. 14l of Oh. 6 of the r. S.
/ to recover the amount assessed upon
the defendants real estate.
! Is he entitled to recover? think not.
What has the plaintiff, in the transac-
ton, authorized the defendant to under
stand and do? For what purpose was
the plaintiffs receipt to the defendant,
given to Heagan & Groves? Was it not
that the defendant might pay them
For what other purpose could it be -?
The defendant had not then paid his tax
-Heagan & Groves had paid the col.
lector for him. What the plaintiff clear
| ly gave the defendant to understand
that he might and must do, expressed In
writing would read as follows: "Mr. |.
c. Holt, Heagan & Groves have paid me
your tax. You pay them. They will
give you my receipt" The defendant
could understand nothing else, and when
he paid Heagan & Groves, as he did, and
took the plaintiffs receipt. it was as per-
feet discharge from his tax as though
he had paid the collector himself in gold.
Again, it is well-settled law that
debtor when making a payment has
| the right TO appropriate it to any one of
the creditors demands. am sat
isfied that the check of Sl03.SS was
turned out in part payment Of the
protested check of Sis. 10. Circum-
stances strongly point that way. AT the
| time, it was so entered on the book of
| Heagan IL Groves, The Bracket &
Russell account against Heagan Il
Groves was only about $50. The check
was perfectly good and has been paid.
! Is it reasonable to suppose Heagan Il
| Groves would turn that check out to pay
debt of about $50: II Heagan &
| Groves had turned out the $l03 IS check
in payment of the Bracket & Russell
! bill 1t naturally would have been re.
ceipted and left, but Durrell took it back
TO Bracket & Russell, a very unnatural
and improper thing to do if the bill had
been paid Hence the plaintiff has re.
ceived the money for all the seven taxes
except $14 y and il he loses that, it is
/ Il. 4. L ! 1 4
not suffer in consequence of it, and the
defendant must have judgment.
o. r. BACHELLER, Judge.
The Cost to Date.