Case Name: Pittsburg v. Tabor & a.
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1881-06
Citations: 61 N.H. 100
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pittsburg v. Tabor & a.
Judges: Doe, C. J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Pittsburg v. Tabor & a.
A collector of taxes is liable for taxes which he might have collected by reasonable diligence, but which, by reason of his negligence, having been left uncollected, have been lost.
A collector of taxes is liable for interest at six per cent, from the time of demand on taxes not collected and lost by his' negligence, and for interest on taxes collected by him from the time when it was his duty to pay them into the town treasury.
Debt, on a collector’s bond. Facts found by a referee. The only matters in controversy were a tax against Ross & Leavitt, a tax against R. E. Peabody & Co., and a claim of ten per cent, interest after December 1, 1876, on uncollected taxes and taxes collected and not paid over to the town. As to the Peabody tax, the collector was negligent. He could have collected it by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, such as he was bound to exercise in his office. He was not guilty of bad faith. As to the Ross & Leavitt tax, he was guilty of no negligence or misconduct in not collecting it. The plaintiffs demanded the amount of the Peabody tax April 1, 1879, and now claim ten per cent, interest thereon. They also claim $2.59, being interest received May 10, 1877, by the collector on taxes for which the lands taxed were sold. No demand for this sum was made prior to the date of the writ.
Dudley Remide and Ray, Drew Jordan, for the plaintiffs.
T. B. Johnson and Bingham Aldrich, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Stanley, J.
The collector is liable for his negligence, which caused the loss of the Peabody tax, not because he has collected it, but because he has unreasonably neglected to 'do so. It was demanded of him April 1, 1879, and the interest should be reckoned from that time. On this question the case does not stand as if it had been collected and not paid over. When collected, it is the duty of the collector to pay it over on or before the first Saturday of the month following its collection. Laws of 1874, c. 85, s. 9; G. L., c. 40, s. 1. Formerly the collector was only liable when he had unreasonably neglected to pay it over, or had used it. Hudson v. Tenney, 6 N. H. 456.
The plaintiffs claim that the collector should be charged with interest at ten per cent, after December 1, 1876. The tax-payer who neglects to pay his taxes on or before December 1 succeeding the assessment, is bound to pay ten per cent, interest. In all other cases six per cent, is the legal rate. Interest should be computed from the day of the demand. If the tax had been collected,. interest would have been reckoned from the day when it was his duty to pay the money into the town treasury. On the $2.59 which he received May 10, 1877, he is chargeable with interest from the first Saturday of the next month.
The plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on the report for $2.59 and interest from the first Saturday of June, 1.877, and for $191.23 and interest from April 1, 1879, on both sums, at six per cent. Northumberland v. Cobleigh, 59 N H. 250, 256.
Case discharged.
Doe, C. J., did not sit: the others concurred.