Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/175/175mass257.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:53:32+00:00

Document:
Present: HOLMES, C.J., MORTON, BARKER, HAMMOND, & LORING, JJ.
Tax -- Abatement -- Appeal -- Objection to Jurisdiction -- Commissioner -- Law and Fact -- National Bank -- Value of Shares -- Evidence -- Estoppel.
It is no bar to the jurisdiction of the court that an appeal to the Superior Court, under St. 1890, c. 127, for an abatement of taxes, was entered less than thirty days after the assessors had given the appellant notice of their decision under § 2, providing that the entry shall be made "at the return day first occurrrng not less than thirty days after" such notice of the decision; nor that the appeal was not tried at the first trial term, as provided in § 4, if the objections are not seasonably taken.
A commissioner appointed urlder St.1890, c. 127, § 5, upon an appeal to the Superior Court for an abatement of taxes assessed on shares of a national bank, is authorized to find the fair cash value of such shares, and his judgment in matters of fact is not open to revision by this court on exceptions.
An expert may testify to value, although his knowledge of details is chiefly derived from inadmissible sources, but the fact that he may use hearsay as a ground of opinion does not make the hearsay admissible.
The excess of the assets over the liabilities of a national bank at a stated time is of no importance in determining the fair cash value of its shares for the purposes of taxation, where there is sufficient evidence of a sum for which the shares could have been sold on that date.
shares for the purposes of taxation was their market value as found by him. Subsequently the bank voted to petition for an abatement of the tax for 1897 upon the basis of the difference between the assessed valuation and the fair cash value of its shares based on the cash sales on or about May 1 of that year. The assessors had requested the bank to submit a statement of the price at which its shares were actually sold at the last sale prior to May 1, mentioning that the last quoted sale before that day was at a certain rate, to which the bank made no reply. Held, that the bank was not estopped to set up that the fair cash value of its shares for the purposes of assessment was less than the cash sales on or about May 1, 1897.
APPEAL to the Superior Court, under St. 1890, c. 127, from the decision of the assessors of the respondent city, on a petition for an abatement of taxes assessed upon the shares of the petitioner. Trial, without a jury, before Braley, J., who found for the petitioner; and the respondent alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
L. LeB. Holmes, for the respondent.
O. Prescott, Jr., for the petitioner.
v. Dayton, 4 Cush. 270 . Eddy's case, 6 Cush. 28 . Custy v. Lowell, 117 Mass. 78 .
The Superior Court was asked to rule that it had no jurisdiction because the appeal was not tried at the first trial term as provided in § 4. The reason for the delay seems to have been that the respondent had not filed an answer, but it now contends that no answer was necessary and that the right of the Superior Court to try the appeal expired with its first sitting. What happened was that after the answer was filed the court appointed a commissioner under § 5, by agreement. We do not care to say more of the respondent's position than that the provision for early trial is for the respondent's benefit, could be waived by it, and, even more plainly than that concerning entry, does not go to the jurisdiction of the court.
Another suggestion was made that the directors' vote authorizing the petition authorized it only to the extent that the assessed valuation exceeded the fair cash value "based on the cash sales on or about" May 1, 1897. Probably the cash sales referred to were cash sales which the petitioner offered to prove but was prevented from proving by the objection of the respondent. If so, we cannot tell what the supposed limit would be; but, further, we think that the vote meant to authorize application for whatever abatement the bank could get, and as the city withdrew this objection before the commissioner we are surprised that it should have been renewed here.
be determined, but only facts relevant to the determination of that issue by the court. We cannot agree to the objection. The fair cash value was itself a question of fact, and the fact that it was an issue did not withdraw it from the cognizance of the commissioner any more than a similar fact necessarily would withdraw a particular conclusion from the sphere of testimony. Poole v. Dean, 152 Mass. 589 , 591.
On the first of May, 1897, the bank was in the midst of a local panic or depression due to recent revelations concerning some of the New Bedford mills. The last auction sale of the stock was in November, 1896, at $ 80 a share. This was before the depression. The next one proved was in November, 1897, at $ 59.50. Experts set the value on May 1 at from $ 45 to $ 55. The respondent says that their testimony should not have been admitted, or at least should not have been followed, but that the respondent should have been allowed to prove private sales, stock quotations from the files of a newspaper, and "the intrinsic value of the assets of the bank," after paying all its liabilities, and that the commissioner erred in excluding this evidence and in disregarding, as he said that he did, the returns made by the bank to the comptroller of the currency according to which the stock should have been worth $ 123 or $ 124 a share. A ruling was asked to the effect that the cash sales about May 1 were for $ 80, and therefore that the petitioner was not entitled to an abatement.
were for $ 80 had been undisputed, was for a conclusion which was not matter of law. It was a question of fact not only whether the sales were proved, but also whether they afforded a fair criterion of value.
The respondent argues as if it had saved an exception to the exclusion of evidence of private sales of stock from April 24, 1897, to November 3, 1897. But it appears from the record that this evidence was offered by the petitioner and objected to by the respondent. It is enough to add that we think the commissioner probably was right in considering the evidence uninstructive under the conditions not denied to have existed on the first of May. Eaton v. Mellus, 7 Gray 566 , 579, 580. He was right also in rejecting newspapers purporting to contain stock quotations furnished by named New Bedford stockbrokers who could have been called. Whelan v. Lynch, 60 N.Y. 469, 474. Schmidt v. Herfurth, 5 Rob. (N.Y.) 124, 145. See Silverstein v. O'Brien, 165 Mass. 512 ; Ashworth v. Kittridge, 12 Cush. 193 ; Payson v. Everett, 12 Minn. 216, 219. An expert may testify to value although his knowledge of details is chiefly derived from inadmissible sources, because he gives the sanction of his general experience. But the fact that an expert may use hearsay as a ground of opinion does not make the hearsay admissible. See Whitney v. Thacher, 117 Mass. 523 , 527; Finnegan v. Fall River Gas Works Co. 159 Mass. 311 ; Smith v. North Carolina Railroad, 68 N.C. 107, 116; Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Skellie, 86 Ga. 686, 693, 694; Hoxsie v. Empire Lumber Co. 41 Minn. 548, 551; Laurent v. Vaughn, 30 Vt. 90, 94, 95; Thatcher v. Kaucher, 2 Col. 698. In Fennerstein's Champagne, 3 Wall. 145, and possibly in Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114, the Supreme Court of the United States showed its willingness to go a little further than this court has gone, although not so far as to let in these newspapers. A later case is more cautious in its expressions. Chaffee v. United States, 18 Wall. 516, 542. In Sisson v. Cleveland & Toledo Railroad, 14 Mich. 489, 497, and Peter v. Thickstun, 51 Mich. 589, 593, the precise facts do not appear. If it was held that newspaper reports are admissible under some circumstances, when better evidence is not attainable, we do not need to differ from the decision in this case, as here the sources of the reports were at hand. See Whart. Ev. (3d ed.) § 674.
The exception mainly relied upon seems to be that which was taken to the exclusion of evidence that "the intrinsic value of the assets and property of the petitioner bank on May 1, 1897, was, after paying all its liabilities, in excess of an amount equivalent to eighty dollars per share of its capital stock." In view of the former decision between these same parties, 155 Mass. 313 , the respondent is driven to the argument that, although such evidence would not be controlling, it is admissible. But under the circumstances of this case the argument is merely technical, -- an argument for a right which could have no influence on the case. There was an ascertainable sum for which these shares could have been sold on May 1, and that being so, it was useless to prove that the public ought to have been willing to give more.
at it, and therefore the attempt to divert the inquiry into a wrong channel was met properly enough by a rejection of the evidence. A ruling was asked and an argument is made that the bank is estopped to set up that the fair cash value of its shares for the purpose of assessment was less than the cash saleson or about May 1, 1897, and that those sales were at $ 80 a share. We have said or implied already that it does not appear that the sales nearest to May 1 and before that date were fair tests of value at the time, and of course it does not appear that they were fair tests of value on May 1, after the storm had struck the market. We have mentioned that the sales referred to in the vote to apply for an abatement possibly if not probably referred to sales not put in evidence. But if there had been a sale at public auction on the first of May and the vote had referred to it in terms, we still should be quite at a loss to see any element of estoppel in the conduct of the bank, whether in the vote, or in trying the case reported in 155 Mass. 313 , or in not informing the assessors of sales later than April 24, or for less than $ 80, [Note p263] and, as we do not find a shadow of a ground for one in the argument for the city, we shall not spend time in establishing a negative. Troy Cotton & Woolen Manuf. Co. v. Fall River, 167 Mass. 517 , 520.
The difficulty of dealing with this case has been enhanced by the failure of the argument to follow the exceptions or to refer to them in such a way as to make clear upon what particular ruling or refusal to rule it was proceeding. But we have examined it and compared it with the bill of exceptions, and we are satisfied that no error is made out.
[Note p263] The vote authorized the cashier to execute on behalf of the bank a petition for the abatement of the tax for 1897, "based upon the difference between the assessed valuation per share and the fair cash value thereof based on the cash sales on about the first day of May, 1897." Soon after the first of May the assessors wrote to the cashier of the bank, requesting him to submit to them a statement of the price at which shares of the bank were actually sold at the last sale prior to May 1, 1897, and mentioning that, according to a list published in a local paper on April 28, the last sale of the bank stock was at the rate of $ 80 per share; to which the bank made no reply.

References: § 2
 § 4
 § 5

v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 674
 v.