Case Name: Inhabitants of Vassalboro' vs. George Nowell and others
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1883-05-29
Citations: 75 Me. 242
Docket Number: 
Parties: Inhabitants of Vassalboro’ vs. George Nowell and others.
Judges: AppletoN, C. J., ViRGiN, Libbey and Symonds, JJ.,. concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 242–251

Head Matter:
Inhabitants of Vassalboro’ vs. George Nowell and others.
Kennebec.
Opinion May 29, 1883.
Taxes. Collector. Illegal assessments.
When a collector of taxes accepts a warrant, with the bills of assessment which, are in part illegal, and collects a portion of the taxes, he is under legal obligation to collect of the remainder so much as are legally assessed. Walton, Bakkows and Danfokth, JJ., dissenting.
Orneville v. Pearson, 61 Maine, 552, and Sarpswell v. Orr, 69 Maine, 333, considered.
On exceptions.
Action on the bond of a collector of taxes.
The case was submitted to a referee, and his report states the question and material facts.
The exceptions were to the ruling of the court, accepting the report and ordering judgment for the defendants (except as to N. C. Wyman).
(Report of referee.)
"Pursuant to the foregoing rule I, the referee therein named, having notified, met, and fully heard the parties, and maturely considered their several allegations and the evidence produced, find and report thereon accordingly, that the writing obligatory declared on, is the deed of the defendants, George Nowell, Jonathan Nowell and William Abbott, and that it was executed also by William F. Tabor, who is dead, and by George H. Pope, against whom the plaintiffs have discontinued on account of his bankruptcy or insolvency, and by one J. O. Wyman, not named as defendant in this suit; and that it was not executed by the defendant, N. C. Wyman, who is in any event entitled to judgment in his favor for his costs of court, to be taxed by the court; and I further report that said writing obligatory has been lost, and that it was a bond, duly executed by the persons-above named, as having become parties to it, and was dated August 17, 1875, and was in the usual form for the penal sum of twenty thousand dollars, and that it was conditioned for the-faithful discharge by the said George Nowell of his duty as-collector of taxes for said town of Vassalboro’, for the year-1875, to which office the said George was legally chosen, and: that he accepted the same, and filed this bond, in pursuance-thereof executed by himself as principal, and the said Jonathan-Nowell and William Abbott, with others, as aforesaid, as sureties,, and that said George Nowell was legally qualified as collector for said year, and received from assessors, duly chosen and qualified,, a warrant in due form of law for the collection of taxes amounting in all to the sum of §19,648.30, for collecting which he was to-have one per cent. He entered upon the collection, and as far as appears he paid over what was due from him for taxes-collected. The taxes were assessed upon real estate, personal property and polls — about four-fifths of the whole amount upon the real estate — the balance upon personal estate and polls in. legal proportions respectively.
"There was no proper description of the real estate taxed, so-that it could be identified and a valid sale made to enforce the collection. The bulk of it simply appeared in the assessment lists, with the name of the party to whom it was taxed as- " buildings and (so many) acres of land,” or " (so many) acres of' land,” without other description. But very few pieces of real estate had any other description, or anything by which their location and boundaries could be ascertained. Besides large-sums remaining uncollected of the taxes upon real estate, thus defectively assessed, there remains uncollected out of the taxes,, for that year, the sum of $600, assessed upon personal property and polls of various individuals.
"But I hold (subject, however, to revision by the court, to-whose decision the law is referred for settlement) that the failure-of the assessors, so to describe the great bulk of the real estate, as to enable the collector to enforce payment of the tax, by making a valid sale of the land, so far relieved him from the duty ■of completing the collection of the taxes, that no action can be maintained on the bond against him and his sureties for his failure, ■to collect either the portion of the taxes on real estate, remaining mncolleeted, or the sum of $600, above mentioned, remaining .uncollected of the taxes assessed upon personal estate and polls.
"At the request of defendants I further report that it appeared that the amount of taxes assessed in Yassalboro’ in 1875, above mentioned — $19,648.30, consisted of $4,528.35, state tax; ‘$1,658.55, county tax; $12,501.00, raised by the town for proper objects, and $960.40,- for overlay which the defendants contended was excessive and vitiated the assessments. I based no conclusion, favorable to the defendants, upon the fact, deeming it a mistake •of the assessors, which under R. S., c. 6, § .114, would not avoid ■the assessment.
"But if on the facts, hereinbefore stated, there is a legal :reason why no action should be maintained against the defendants for the said George Nowell’s neglect to collect the sums remaining uncollected on the commitment to him for the year 1875, ■then judgment is to-be rendered in favor of all the defendants, rand for their costs of reference taxed at one dollar and thirty-two •cents and costs of court to be taxed by the court.
"But if, notwithstanding these facts, the defendants are liable ■for the failure of the said collector to collect personal property ■and poll taxes legally assessed, then judgment should be rendered :for the plaintiffs for six hundred dollars, and interest thereon, from the date of the writ to the time when judgment is made up ■as debt or damage, and for costs of reference taxed at six dollars and fourteen cents, and costs of court to be taxed by the court, .against the said defendants, George Nowell, Jonathan Nowell and William Abbott.
William G. Barrows, referee.”
Herbert M. Heath, for the plaintiffs.
Joseph Baker, for the defendants.
The defendants cannot be liable under such an assessment, because the fault or negligence of the plaintiffs themselves, has deprived the collector of the facilities for fulfilling the conditions of his bond.
By a vote of the town at the March meeting they agreed to pay the collector one per cent for collecting the taxes of that year. The collector accepted this proposition and entered upon the duties of his office, upon the strength of their promise to pay him that sum for collecting all the taxes. This, we hold, was a contract between the town and the collector. Now it is hardly any more work or expense to collect a real and personal estate tax of each tax payer, than to collect the personal estate tax alone. But the town, by their negligence, deprives the collector of all the percentage of the real estate tax, which is four-fifths, at least, and then seek to compel the defendant to collect the personal tax. This is a palpable violation of their contract with the collector and releases him.
The case of HarpsweU v. Orr, 69 Maine, 333, is conclusive on this point. That was not a case of real estate tax alone, but it involved taxes upon both personal and real. The court make no suggestion of confining the decision to real estate taxes alone, and both the language and the reasons given cover each.
So in Orneville v. Pearson, 61 Maine, 552 ; excepting "animals” in the warrant of commitment, would take away one mode of collecting taxes on personal estate, but not on real estate; and yet the court there held that the bond was not liable for uncollected taxes. No one ever dreamed of seizing animals to pay a real estate tax, and yet because of that exemption in the warrant and not in the law, the court say it is no breach of the bond not to complete the collection of the taxes. The fact is you cannot divide. The bond is a unit, and if the town, by its own acts, prevent the performance of the whole or any part, the other party has a right to refuse to perform.
There is another illegality here which affects the whole assessment. The overlayings were §26.01, in excess of the five percent overlay allowed by law. We claim this violates the whole-tax. Mwell v. Shaw, 1 Maine, 339 ; Huse v. Merriam, 2 Maine,, 375; Mosher v. Robie, 11 Maine, 135.

Opinion:
Peters, J.
A town collector failed to collect a portion of tbe taxes committed to him. Among the uncollected were taxes upon persons and personal property, amounting to six hundred dollars, which were properly assessed, and also a large amount of taxes upon real estate, assessed under defective and illegal descriptions. The collector complains that, by this insufficient assessment of such real estate, he was deprived of one mode or arm of power by which the collection of that portion of the taxes could be enforced. Does this fact, after the collector has received a portion of both the legal and the illegal taxes, excuse him from a further collection of the legal taxes remaining unpaid ? ¥e know of no rule or policy of the law which justifies such a proposition.
We are not prepared to say, for it is not now necessary for us to decide such a question, that a collector would be obliged to accept a warrant to enforce the collection of taxes, a portion of which were defectively assessed, and not legally collectible. But we think that, when he does accept a warrant with the bills of assessment, and collects a portion of the taxes, he is under legal obligation to collect of the remainder so' much as are legally assessed. If the rule is to be otherwise, it might just as well be decided that collectors may collect taxes or not, as they please; for we well know that scarcely a city or town in this state, if •even one, has ever placed in the hands of its collectors perfect assessments upon all of its real estate. Certainly, a sound public policy will not allow a collector to proceed so far as to gather all the taxes which may be obtained readily and easily, and receive his commission upon them, and refuse to collect the rest of the taxes legally assessed.
We cannot see that the present case is a stronger one for the defendants, because "the great bulk of the real estate in town," was defectively described in the assessment. Logically, the rule would be the same, whether the number of parcels be few or many. The argument for the defendants proceeds upon the .ground that the contract between the town and its collector is an •entirety, the implication being that the collector is to have a ^percentage upon all the taxes to be assessed, and that the town breaks its side of the contract by furnishing imperfect assessments. If this be so, we cannot perceive why the contract is not broken by the town, if the assessment by mistake includes a poll tax upon a deceased person, or upon a person removed from town, or if the assessors abate a portion of the taxes assessed. Who could say, in such case, where the stopping point shall be, beyond which the tax gatherer may not retreat in order to shelter himself from liability? The term, "great bulk," does not describe a measure definite enough to go by. The rule would not be precise or practical. Parties would have nothing but uncertainty to depend upon.
The position of the defense as to the nature of the contract between the parties cannot be sustained. The real relation is that of principal and agent. The agent need not enter upon the work assigned to him, if there be any reasonable objection to it. But entering upon the execution of his duties, he has no right to leave those duties half performed. The collector in the present case could have seen the difficulties in his way, just as well in the beginning as in the end. He is excusable for non-collection, only so far as the town failed to furnish him full and sufficient means with which to enforce collection. That failure here applies not. to the whole list of uncollected assessments, but only to a distinct and separable part of them. The burden complained of by the collector is pretended rather than real.
The collector cannot dictate as to what persons or what property shall be assessed. He takes his chances as to that. His compensation is regulated accordingly. If property is omitted from assessment, it is no concern of his. And, surely, if real estate is defectively assessed, it can make no stronger case for him than if not taxed at all. Property illegally taxed may well be regarded as in the condition of property omitted from taxation. So, assessors may make new assessments sometimes: may abate assessments under some circumstances; may correct errors in both warrants and assessments in some cases; and none of these steps taken by the assessors will exonerate a collector from the performance of the duties undertaken by him.
The town is certainly in a dilemma, if this collector can throw up his commission. If he is not under a legal obligation to collect the taxes that are legally and well assessed, then no other collector can be placed under such obligation. Nor do we see that the town officers could • commit these bills of assessment, in the present condition of things, to a new collector. There is no cause for declaring the office vacant. There is no vacancy to fill. K,. S., c. 6, § 121.
The defendants rely upon several cases as approving the doctrine which they contend for. We think the cases fail to support such doctrine. In Orneville v. Pearson, 61 Maine, 552, it was held that a collector was not obliged to complete the service required under a defective and illegal warrant. The presumption is that the warrant was not sufficient for the enforcement of any of the taxes in that case remaining* unpaid. In Harpswell v. Orr, 69 Maine, 333, a collector was exonerated from completing his services under a valid warrant, where there was no description, in the valuation and assessment, of the real estate taxed. " The omission," it is there said, " deprived the collector of one mode of collecting the tax." It does not appear in that case that any of the unpaid taxes were legally assessed. The doctrine established by those cases is, that a town cannot hold a collector responsible for failing to do what it has neglected to> give him the power to do. Nothing more or different from this was in the mind of the court in rendering those decisions. They should be regarded as authorities for nothing beyond it. A collector cannot be obliged to act under an illegal warrant, nor has he all the means furnished by law to collect a tax upon real estate when such estate is not properly and sufficiently described. But so far as taxes are concerned which he has full and legal power to collect, if he enters upon a discharge of his official duties, he should complete those duties at least to the extént of the power conferred.
Exceptions sustained. •
AppletoN, C. J., ViRGiN, Libbey and Symonds, JJ.,. concurred.