Case Name: Nason versus Whitney
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1822-10
Citations: 1 Pick. 140
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nason versus Whitney.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 144–147

Head Matter:
Nason versus Whitney.
A parish cannot in one year grant money, and assess it upon one valuation, for the taxes of more than one year.
This was an action of trespass. In March or April, 1820, the Congregational society of the town of Harvard voted the sum of $ 500 for the supply of the pulpit for the year then next ensuing, which wras duly assessed by the assessors ol the town, of whom the defendant was one, and collected. This sum being expended before the 26th of February, 1821, the society on that day voted to raise $ 400 for the supply of the pulpit for the year then ensuing. This last sum was assessed, and a warrant for collecting it made out, on the 27th of February, by the defendant and the other assessors. The plaintiff having refused to pay his proportion of the assessment, his cow was .distrained by virtue of the warrant; and this is the trespass complained of in the declaration.
At the trial in the Court of Common Pleas, Howe J. instructed the jury, that the funds of the society being exhausted on the 26th of February, it was lawful for them to raise a reason able sum for the support of the ministry for the year then next ensuing, notwithstanding a sum for the same purpose had been voted in March or April preceding, and to have it assessed upon the valuation of estates of the May preceding, although the sum previously voted had been assessed upon the same valuation ; that the assessment made on the 27th of February was a legal assessment, and that the defendant was justified in making the distress.
A verdict was accordingly found for the defendant, and the plaintiff filed his exceptions to the instructions of the judge.-
Hoar, in support of the exceptions.
There are several statutes from which it is clear, that towns or parishes cannot, in one year, assess and collect taxes for the purposes of the next. The assessors and collectors are intended to be for one year only. St. 1785, c. 50, § 1; St. 1785, c. 70, §§ 16, 17. In St. 1785, c. 50, §§ 8, 9, it is provided, that town and parish taxes shall be assessed according to the rules that shall from time to time be prescribed by the then last tax act. By the seventh section of the annual tax acts, the assessment of town and parish taxes is to be made according to the same valuation as the State tax, except where changes have taken place since that valuation, or the town thinks proper to make a nexv valuation. Now the valuation is made annually ; and, if the assessors may, in one year, assess the taxes for two years, they may for twenty, and these provisions will become nugatory. A lessee for a year may thus be obliged to pay taxes of which his successor will have the whole benefit.
Lincoln and Hinds, for the defendant.
Toxvns and parishes have a general authority in cases of this kind. They are bound to support public worship, and by St. 1785, c. 75, § 7, and St. 1786, c. 10, § 3, they may at any meeting raise money for that purpose. In Stetson v. Kempton et al., 13 Mass. Rep. 272, the tax was assessed in October, but no objection was made on the ground of its being assessed according to the previous valuation. In Dillingham v. Snow et al. the tax was voted in October. If the meetinghouse should be destroyed or injured by fire in December, the parish would have a right to raise money immediately to rebuild or repair it. It is competent to them to raise money at any time to purchase a parsonage or for the settlement of a minister, and they may pay at once to a minister a sum equivalent to an annuity for his life. It is impossible for a town or parish, m the beginning of the year, to estimate exactly what sum will be adequate to defray the expenses of the year, and they must have power afterwards to supply any deficiency in the sum first raised; and if it is not deemed expedient to make a new valuation, the assessment must be according to the valuation of the May preceding.
Hoar, in reply, said he did not contend,
that where the sum first raised was inadequate to the expenses of the year, a further sum to supply the deficiency might not be granted and assessed upon the preceding valuation, but he objected that here was a grant and assessment for a second year, which was illegal.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered at April term 1823, by
Putnam J.
The objection made by the plaintiff is, that ^le society has granted money in one year for the taxes of two years, and assessed the same upon one valuation ; and our opinion is, that this objection ought to prevail.
Assessors are to be chosen annually in March or April, and are to assess the polls and estates of the inhabitants within the town or district their due proportion, according to the rules set down in the tax act: and they are annually to make out an invoice or valuation, and leave the original, or a copy, with the clerk of the town or district, so that it may be inspected by all who may be rated : and the assessments are to be made according to the value of the estates on the first day of May in each year.
It appears, that the town of Harvard have for forty years voted their taxes in March or April annually, to be assessed according to the valuation of the 1st of May then next to come. That was done by the Congregational society in March, 1820 ; and just before the expiration of the year, viz. on the 27th of February, 1821, the vote passed to raise the tax for the year then next to come, upon the valuation which was made in the May then next preceding. But the taxes for the next year were, by law, to be made by assessors chosen for that year, and upon a valuation to be made for that year. The number of the inhabitants, and the amount of their estates, are continually varying. It was wise in the legislature to require, that the estates, or property to be taxed, should be ascertained as often as once a year, for the due apportioning of the taxes upon the people.
It has been argued, that it is competent for towns to grant money in advance for the supply of the pulpit; that they may raise money at once to support a minister for life ; that they may buy a parsonage-house, as well as build a meetinghouse ; and make present arrangements and provisions which would be equivalent to an annual salary for life.
The authority which is delegated to towns to grant money, is limited to such sum and sums of money, as they shah' judge necessary for the settlement, maintenance and support of the ministry, schools, the poor, and other necessary charges arising within the same town. They may raise as • much money for those purposes as they may want yearly. If the authority should be abused, for sinister objects, it migl t be evidence to satisfy a jury, that the assessment was fraudulent, and not for the purposes intended by the statute.
And each case must depend upon its peculiar circumstances. We are not governed, in the case now under consideration, by the apparent precipitancy manifested by the society in voting the tax for the second year. It appears, indeed, that the time r. which, according to the ancient usage, the grant might have been made, would have arrived in the course of a few days ; but we know nothing of the motives which have governed the proceeding, and determine the case upon the ground, that it is unjust and illegal to apportion the taxes of the succeeding year upon the present inhabitants, and according to the valuation of the present year. It would be unjust, inasmuch as persons not liable to pay would be compelled to pay, while others hable, would be wholly excused. For example, an inhabitant who should be a mere lessee for one year, might in this way be compelled to pay taxes for one or more years to come after the expiration of his lease, when he might not be an inhabitant, or have any property in the town; and another person who should come into the town after the making the valuation, would be exempted, together with his estate. . And it would be illegal, because the assessors are to be chosen annually, and are required to ascertain the just proportions, which the inhabitants shall contribute towards the public burdens, by a reference to the valuation of the estates on the first day of May yearly.
We are therefore of opinion, that the verdict in this case should be set aside, and a new trial granted.
See Granger v. Parsons, 2 Pick. 392; Waldron v. Lee, 5 Pick. 323; Southampton v. Easthampton, 8 Pick. 380.