Case Name: Locke v. Pittsfield; Barton v. Shaw & a.
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1884-06
Citations: 63 N.H. 122
Docket Number: 
Parties: Locke v. Pittsfield. Barton v. Shaw & a.
Judges: Smith J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 122–123

Head Matter:
Locke v. Pittsfield. Barton v. Shaw & a.
The doctrine of Edes v. Boardman, 58 N. H. 580, applies to the assessment and collection of taxes for school-district purposes.
Trespass. Both actions were tried by the court. The plaintiff, in opening, stated that the first action is brought to recover $41.83, paid under protest to the collector of Pittsfield, and by him paid over to the treasurer of Pittsfield, for a school-house tax assessed upon the plaintiff in a special assessment, May 29, 1876, upon the annual invoice in that jmar; and that the second action is against the selectmen of Pittsfield and Epsom and the collector of Pittsfield, for the collection of a tax included in the same assessment, the plaintiff in each action claiming the assessment to be illegal. The school-district, on account of which said taxes were assessed, is composed of territory and inhabitants in both of said towns. The plaintiffs admit that if the doctrine of Edes v. Board-man, 58 N. H. 580, applies to the assessment and collection of taxes for school-district purposes, they should be nonsuited. The court ruled that the doctrine of that case does apply, and ordered a nonsuit in each case, to which the plaintiffs excepted.
A. Whittemore, Jr., and J. T". Mugridge, for the plaintiffs.
Chase Streeter and J. II. Albin, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Blodgett, J.
No reason has been or can be given why Edes v. Boardman does not apply to the assessment and collection of taxes for school-district purposes ; and therefore, according to the agreement of the parties, the nonsuits ordered at the trial term must stand.
Exceptions overruled.
Smith J., did not sit: the others concurred.