Year: 1861

oe an evidence Of trifiing with his duty.


IL was further contended that il was incumbent on
the collector to show that he did receive the tax roll
from the Governor, from person authorized BY
him to deliver it. It is made the duty Of the Assessors


in the several taxation districts deliver the Govern
of their respective Islands two copies Of their tax


stand it is made the duty of the Governor to deliver
to each Tax Collector copy of the tax list for his dis
trct This is directory to the Governor. and although
in this the delivery by the Registrar of Public
Accounts. by whom il had been made for some years,
there could have been doubt in the minds Of the
jury that the proper paper delivered At any rate
1t Is not contended that the Assessors list is not gen.
uine. We regard this objection unsound in law.


1t contended that the Collector should exhibit his
authority when demanded Of him. The Curt ruled
that if the tax list demanded, il his duty to
show it, and this submitted to the jury whether,
there such n demand and whether it complied
with The jury have settled this matter this ruling,
which, the Court would here that upon further
examination this would not be a requisite to good
execution OF the process II would doubtless subject
the officer demand and refusal exhibit his author
iy. to forcbe resistance-but it would not vitiste
the execution Of the process IL Met. 2ll n Post
Cy CONS Cushing ATT; Cush. 55.


The Collector is ministerial officer, and therefore
cannot be liable for acting in pursuance of legal
thOrity The Assessors tribunal, invested with
certain powers and have certain duties PERFORM and
the Collector being duly appointed. has his authority
from the tax list This is the same in law, the
warrant directing the Collector to collect the tax
by the tax list accompanying which is prescribed by the
laws Of many countries. The counsel have raised
many objections to the discharge Of the duties Of As
SCISSORS well to their appointment, but have
already decided that the Collector is answer,be for his
official acts only ii is unnecessary to consider them.


In the of Howard ct al. u.s. Proctor, Gray's
Rep l33, which was an action OF tort against COL
lector of taxes for taking horse, the Court says that
the warrant being good upon its fee sufficient in point
of form, and coming from authority having jurs-
diction of the subject th defendant cannot be liable
for its regular execution This rule, applicable to
executive officers. includes Collectors warrant
good upon its face protects the Collector acting under
it, for he is liable for the regularity of the meetings,
town district, the validity of the votes by which
the taxes granted Hays us. Drake, Grsy's
Rep. 387.


If the plaintiff suffered injury from the manner in
which the Collector executed his duty he has his REM
edy, but it cer that it cannot be enforced in this
action. II undoubtedly the doctrine Of the
law that chattels in the custody Of the law could
not be replevied. But regard the same rule now to
be, and which has been recognized for long period,
that goods taken in execution in csodd egis may
be repleved, if they the goods wrongfy taken Of
person who is unknown to the process For example,
If an officer has an execution against A, and UNDER
tales to execute it on goods in the possession of B.
may bring replevin for them-but this is not the
remedy if they the goods Of A-ior | reg ,rd an
arrest by virtue of the list by the Collector Of taxes
in the nature of arrest at common law upon final
process-and levy by distress upon the g dds and
chattes by the same authority, in the nature of
execution. rs Fosters Rep. 25S; Ilsley ct al.
Stubbs Mass, 2S2, and cases there cited


In the case of Dun ham rs. Wychope Wendell, 279.
the Court recognize the principle that goods taken in
execution are in the custody of the law, and cannot be
taken out Of such custody, when the officer found
them in, and ta them out of the possession Of the
defendant in the execution, applies only between the
defendant and the officer There is great propriety
and wisdom in this rule. There is dispute to the


title of the property attached II is admitted to be in
the plaintiff For illustration Supp sc the property
was taken in execution against the present defendant
would it be wise provision Of law TO permit the debtor
longer delay the collection of the debt by permitting
the ,uit of replevn He has had his day in Court and


judgment is recovered against him, and execution is
sued thereon. II this is the rule of law applicable
the collection of executions, how much should t
be in the collection of taxes for the faith Of the Govern
ment, and perhaps its existence, depend upon the
prompt payment of the taxes. The statute declares
that the Tux Collector may levy by distress upon
much of the goods and ch els OF the sd person. who
negects refuses to pay his taxes, he may deem
sufficient for the payment OF taxes and expenses of COL
lection This is in the nature of execution, and
Chief Justice Shaw says in Preston Brookes. I2
Pics, IA, running against the person and property Of
the party, upon which he has no day in Court, op-
pOrtunty plead and offer proof and have judicial
decision of the question of his liability. As general
rule the officer is bonnl TO only that the pr is
in proper form, and is ed from Court Of competent
jurisdiction To accomplish the purpose Of the law, and
TO give to Courts prompt and nergetic execution OF
the proc issued by their authority, there be
other rule; and the ruiz, which is applicable to
.execuiive officers, includes Collectors. Grays Rep,
)l33. Howard ct al. rs. Proctor.


In the of Abbot YCst DEMO, SO, the Court
says, that a regulr list, and warrant for a dis
trct tax, sufficient justification the Collector
when sued for taking fhe property of the person taxed
though the district meeting at which the voted
Illegal" In the case of Kellar Savage ct ais,
20 Maine Rep l99, the Court say " that the Collector
is bound to obey a warrant in due form, and issuing
from the Assessors, though they may not have COM
piled with every requison of law anterior to issuing
it,


The principles which this decision is made render
it essary to examine in detail the objections
of the counsel for the plaintiff


let judgment be entered for the defendant, with
costs.