Case Name: Thomas Young v. John B. King
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1855-09
Citations: 3 R.I. 196
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Young v. John B. King.
Judges: 
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 196–198

Head Matter:
Thomas Young v. John B. King.
TVliero Y’s land had been levied upon and sold by a Tax Collector for non-payment of a sohool district tax, and Y. brought ejectment against the purchaser, alleging and offering to show that prior to the levy and sale he had paid his tax to the Treasurer of the district: Held, That evidence to this effect was inadmissible; that the Tax Collector is the only officer au-thorised to collect a tax assessed by a town or a school district; and that the levy and sale was valid.
The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion of the Court.
Thurston for plaintiff
contended that prior to a levy or sale for a tax, there must bo a demand and a refusal to pay; and that to whom a tax is paid is unimportant if the tax is in fact paid into the treasury of the town or district. School Act, see. 35, 36, (P. L. 830 — 1.) Act regulating assessing and collecting of taxes, see. 10, (Big. 1844, p. 421-8.)
T. A. Tenches for defendant
contended that no person! or officer other than the Tax Collector, has power to receive and receipt for a tax; that the statutes give' neither to the collector nor the tax payer, any discretion in this regard; and that a collector is liable upon his bond, if he fails to collect and make return. Act in relation to the election and duties of public officers, sec. 19, (Dig. 1844, p. 304.)

Opinion:
Bosworth, J.
— This is an action of ejectment, in which the plaintiff seeks to recover of the defendant a certain tract of land in Scituate. The defendant pleads the general issue, in which the plaintiff joins. The defendant also pleads soil and freehold in himself and claims to hold the premises in dispute by virtue of a deed from Sterry B. "Wilbour, a legally appointed tax collector for the district, (school district No. 7 in said Scituate) in which the land is situated. The deed recites in substance, that a tax had been assessed and levied on the ratable property in said district, and a tax bill with a warrant was, in due form, of law, delivered to the said tax collector, by which he was directed to collect the tax and. pay it over to the district treasurer or his successor in office : And that the said Thomas Young, neglecting to pay the tax assessed against him as expressed in said tax bill, the warrant was levied on the land by the collector, and, in the form prescribed by law, was sold at public auction, and the deed thereof duly executed to the defendant in this case.
The agreement of the parties admits the legality of the-assessment of the tax, and the authority of the collector to sell the land in the maimer in which it was sold, in default of the proper payment of the tax.
At the trial before the jury, two receipts were offered as- evidence of the payment of the tax, which receipts were expressed to be for the amount of the tax in full, and were signed by John B. King, Treasurer of school district No. T. Tbis evidence being ruled inadmissible by tbe judge, at tbe trial, a verdict was taken by consent of tbe parties for tbe defendant, subject to tbe opinion of tbe Court upon tbis evidence, as to whether tbe payment of tbe amount assessed against tbe plaintiff to tbe treasurer was a payment of tbe tax.
It is by law made tbe duty of tbe district collector to collect tbe tax and pay it over to tbe treasurer or bis successor in office. To him is delivered tbe tax bill and warrant for that purpose. He gives bond for tbe proper performance of that duty if a bond is required, and is entitled to the commission provided by law for bis services in collecting tbe tax. He must collect tbe tax and pay it over to tbe treasurer within tbe time specified in bis warrant. If be fails to do tbis be may be sued or prosecuted for bis default. Tbe treasurer has no authority to collect tbe tax; but only to receive it of tbe collector when collected, and disburse it according to law. He does not have the tax bill for tbe purpose; and payment to him is no more a legal payment than it would be if made to any other officer of tbe district, who is not authorized by law to collect tbe tax. We therefore think that tbe receipts offered in evidence, being tbe receipts of a person not authorized to collect tbe tax, or receive it from tbe person assessed, are no evidence that tbe tax had been paid before tbis land was sold. Tbe plaintiff neglected to pay the tax to tbe only officer authorized to collect it, when payment was by that officer demanded, and in default of tbe payment, his land has been sold according to law. Judgment must therefore be rendered upon tbe verdict.