Case Name: Dunnell Manufacturing Company vs. Inhabitants of Pawtucket
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1856-10
Citations: 7 Gray 277
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dunnell Manufacturing Company vs. Inhabitants of Pawtucket.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
Dunnell Manufacturing Company vs. Inhabitants of Pawtucket.
A manufacturing corporation, who are taxed in the town where their real estate is situated and their machinery employed, for such real estate and machinery, and also for their stock in trade and other personal property, and pay the whole tax, may maintain an action against the town to recover back the latter portion of the tax; and are not estopped to maintain such an action, by having, before the assessment of the tax, sent in to the assessors a statement of their taxable property, including all these items; if the assessors did not assess upon that valuation, and knew that they were a corporation.
Action of contract by a manufacturing corporation, doing business in Pawtucket in this commonwealth, to recover back so much of a tax paid by them, as was assessed upon their stock in trade, and their stock in a gas company in Pawtucket, R. I. The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon a statement of facts, the material part of which appears in the opinion.
C. B. Farnsworth, for the plaintiffs.
G. I. Reed, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Thomas, J.
For the real estate of the corporation situated in the town, and for machinery employed in manufactures there, the plaintiffs were liable to be taxed in Pawtucket. Their personal estate is assessed in the tax upon the shares of the company. Rev. Sts. c. 7, § 7, 9,10. Salem Iron Co. v. Danvers, 10 Mass. 514. Boston & Sandwich Glass Co. v. Boston, 4 Met. 181. Worcester Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Worcester, 7 Cush. 600.
The only question in the case arises from the fact that the plaintiffs, by the clerk of the corporation, sent in to the assessors a statement of the property for which they were taxable, as follows : Real estate, including machinery, $300,000; goods and chattels in market on hand, $432,000; bills receivable, $22,500; cash, $2,456 ; stock in gas company, $2,000.
The defendants contend that the plaintiffs are by this paper estopped to deny the validity of the tax.
The answer is twofold. First, the assessors did not adopt the list for their valuation. They tax for real estate, $200,000 ; machinery and fixtures, $100,000; stock in trade, $400,000; stock in gas company, $2,000.
Secondly. It appears that the assessors knew of the existence of the corporation, for they taxed the only stockholder residing in Pawtucket, for stock in the corporation, to the amount of $50,000. The existence of the corporation being known, it was perfectly plain, under the statutes, for what the plaintiffs were liable to be taxed, to wit, for the real estate and machinery.
And there is no legal or equitable reason why the plaintiffs should not recover back the amount paid on stock in trade and the stock in the gas company. Judgment accordingly.