Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-08-23
JUDGMENT FOR NEWPORT.
Decision of Law Court in Action on
Tax Collectors Bond.

A decision was handed down by the law
court Saturday in the Penobscot county
case of Inhabitants of Newport vs. Wal
do II. Bennett ct ais. The rescript, which
was drawn by Associate Justice Arno W.
King of Ellsworth, declares that the
clause in the tax collector'sbond requiring
him to settle in full with the town of
Newport on or before Feb. l, 1907, is valid
and gives judgment for the, town of New
port for $17S0.96, with interest thereon
from Feb. Is, 1897, with costs of reference
and of court. The rescript is as follows
Inhabitants of Newport vs. Waldo H.
Bennett ct ais.
Rescript by King ].
Action on a tax collectors bond report
ed to the law court for determination of
the question submitted by the referee.
At the annual meeting of the town of
Newport for 1906, the town voted that
the collector should settle in full with
the town of Feb. l, 1907 The bond in
suit was given May Z, 1906 and contains
this condition: THAT whereas the said
Waldo H. Bennett has been chosen COL
lector of taxes for said town for the year
1906. now if the said Waldo H. Bennett
shall we'll and faithfully perform all the
duties of his said office, and shall col
lect the taxes committed to him within
the said year, and shall settle in full
with said town or or before Feb. 1, A. d.
1907, then this obligation shall be void;
otherwise it shall remain in full force
and virtue
The collector did not settle in full with
the town on or before Feb. l, 1907, and
this action was commenced Feb. 15 1907.
The defendants claim that the clause of
the bond land shall settle in full with
said town on or before Feb. L. A. d. 1907
being an obligation in excess of the stat
utory requirements of the condition of a
tax collectors bond, should be disregard
ed as surplusage leaving the bond a good
statute bond only, on which this suit
could not be maintained because prema-
turely commenced. This is the question
submitted by the referee. The defendants
base their claim on the proposition that
q collector can only be required to give
a statute bond, and if they had tender1
the bond without this clause the
could have legally required nothing, n
But they did not tender suchsp6flf1ss
gave this. ESs
We know of no provision 6f 81 e
which makes such a bond tas this vSfd
The purpose of the clause for an early
and full settlement with the town is
neither unlawful nor immoral, but COM
mendable. The defendants had a right
to give a bond containing sucn clause
if they saw fit. and the town had a right
to accept it if given. There is no sugges-
ton of coercion or duress of the defend
ants. Bennett accepted the office of col
lector upon that express condition. that
he should settle in full on or before Feb
l.. 1907. The inference is fair that his
compensation was materially increased
because of that special obligation. The
defendants bond is voluntary contract
on their part with the town, founded
upon a sufficient consideration. and in
tended to serve a lawful purpose.
The most important part of that con-
tract for the town was this clause in
question: and that should not now be dis
regarded. Language which the parties to
a contract Intentionally used, and by
which their lawful rights and obligations
are clearly expressed and which cannot
be diSregarded without impairing and d.
strcying those rights and obligations. is
not Superfluous, and unnecessary, and
hcEce surpusage. 1t is vital and essen