Case Name: The Inhabitants of Ashby versus Amos Wellington et al.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1829-10-17
Citations: 8 Pick. 525
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Inhabitants of Ashby versus Amos Wellington et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 541–543

Head Matter:
The Inhabitants of Ashby versus Amos Wellington et al.
Where a second parish is formed in a town which has conducted its parochial affairs without organizing itself as a parish, the affairs of the first parish may lawfully continue to be managed by the town.
So that where a collector of the town gave a bond, with sureties, conditioned to pay over to the town treasurer all moneys assessed by the town and committed to him to collect, the obligors were held liable for the amount received by the collector on account of a tax assessed by the assessors of the town for the payment of the minister of the first parish.
This was an action of debt on a bond dated April 3, 1826.
The condition of the bond, which was set forth on oyer, after reciting that Wellington, at the last March meeting, was chosen collector of taxes for the town of Ashby for the year, proceeded, —“Now if the said Amos Wellington shall well and truly pay over to the treasurer of the said town of Ashby, as also the county and State tax to the treasurer thereof, all moneys assessed by the said town of Ashby and committed to him to collect, agreeably to the directions of the assessors and a vote of said town of Ashby at their annual March meeting in 1823, then” &c.
The defendants pleaded omnia performavit.
The plaintiffs replied, that Wellington, after the delivery of the bond, “did collect and receive as such collector, of and from the said inhabitants of Ashby, a large sum of money, viz. the sum of 515 dollars and 28 cents, which had been assessed by said town of Ashby and committed to said Wellington, collector as aforesaid, to collect, the same being assessed for the payment of the salary of Rev. Ezekiel L. Bascom, after the execution and delivery of said bond and within the year next following the day of the said March meeting,” &c. On this, issue was tendered and joined.
At the trial, before Morton J., the following facts appeared in evidence. The town of Ashby had for many years prior to the date of the bond, managed its parochial affairs as a town, without organizing itself as a parish. Some time before the date of the bond, a second parish was formed in the town, and was duly organized as a parish. From the time of the forma tian of the second parish, to the time of the trial, the first parish had managed their parochial affairs by the officers chosen by the town, without any special organization for the manage* ment of parish business. The taxes in question were assessed by the assessors chosen by the town, for the payment of the salary of the minister of the first parish. Wellington was chosen collector of taxes for the town for the year 1826. Wellington, being called on by the plaintiffs, produced the book containing a list of the assessments. While the list was in Wellington’s hands, he collected of one Stephen Wyman, named in it, the amount assessed upon his polls and estate, and gave Wyman the following receipt, viz. “ Ashby, February 21, 1829. Received of Stephen Wyman twenty-nine dollars and thirty-three cents in full for his minister tax for 1826. Amos Wellington, Collector for Ashby.”
The book produced by Wellington, beside the list of assessments, contained the following order, dated September 12lh, 1826, and signed by the assessors of the town : — “ Collector’s Book, 1826. Minister rate. To Amos Wellington, Esq. collector of taxes for the town of Ashby. The foregoing is a list of assessments upon the polls and estates of the persons therein named, each one for his proportion of the sum of five hundred and fifteen dollars twenty-eight cents, which you are to collect and pay on or before the first day of December next.”
The defendants were defaulted. The default was to stand, if the Court should be of opinion that the facts proved supported the plaintiff’s replication ; otherwise the default was to be taken off and a new trial granted.
Fletcher and Brooks, for the defendants,
Oet 15th
suggested that after the formation of a second parish within a town, the town cannot raise a tax for the salary of the minister of the first parish, and that a collector of the town cannot in that capacity be liable for such a tax collected by him.
Hoar, for the plaintiffs.
Oct. 17th.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
That a town can assess a tax for parochial purposes, there being a second parish in the town, does not admit of a question. And this matter has not been pressed, it being ascertained to have been frequently decided, that affairs ot a parochial nature may be conducted by town officers, and in the usual course of municipal proceedings.
Judgment for plaintiffs.