Court Opinion

ID: 3585894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:35:52.701391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:48.846283
License: Public Domain

The warrant in the hands of the defendant, as collector, directed him to collect the amounts specified from the persons named, and "to levy the same of the goods and chattels of such persons." Assuming the regularity of the assessment, that the property was subject to the assessment made, and that the bank held the funds with which the tax should have been paid, the defendant is not justified. By his warrant, if necessary to obtain payment, he was authorized to levy upon the goods of the persons named. No other authority *Page 526 
was confided to him. This authority is special and exceptional. It must be pursued according to its terms. Allen Brothers were the first persons named in the assessment roll given in evidence. Their property was assessed at $10,000, and a tax of sixteen dollars was imposed upon the same. This tax the collector was authorized and directed to collect by a levy and sale of the goods and chattels of the Messrs. Allen, if this sum should not be voluntarily paid. But he had no authority to levy upon the goods of another person to make this sum. His authority did not reach to that extent. He probably had no authority to make such levy and sale, even with the consent of such other person. His authority was limited to two precise acts; first, to receive a voluntary payment; second, if such payment was not made, to levy upon and sell the goods of the persons named in the tax list. If the Sandy Hill Bank had undertaken to pay these taxes, there was probably a way in which the performance of their engagement could have been enforced, if payment could not have been otherwise obtained. But it is too clear for argument, that a tax collector could not enforce such an agreement by a seizure and sale of the property of the bank.
The assessment upon the shares of a national bank was for a tax imposed by authority of the State of New York. It was made in the autumn of the year 1865, and by virtue of the statute of the State of New York, passed in that year. (Laws 1865, ch. 97, § 10, p. 172.) It has been expressly adjudged by the Supreme Court of the United States (Van Allen v. The Assessors, 3 Wal., 573) that this statute was invalid, and that a tax imposed under its authority could not be enforced. The City of Utica v.Churchill (33 N.Y., 161), holding the contrary doctrine, was reversed by the case of Van Allen v. The Assessors. The tax sought to be enforced in this case was not therefore legally imposed. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed. *Page 527