Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Mass. 493

Payson v. Tufts

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1816

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1816-10-15

This action was trespass against the defendants, assessors of the town of Charlestown, for an illegal assessment, by force whereof certain chattels of his were taken and sold ; and it was submitted to the consideration of the Court upon certain facts agreed by the parties.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1816-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1936

7 state decisions

201816182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1There is no question, that the property of minors, personabas well as real, is liable to be assessed in the public taxes. The tax acts, from year to year, make no exception of this kind. Indeed, such an exception would be highly unreasonable, since many of the first estates in the country are, at one time or another, the property of minors.

¶2It is also apparent, from an examination of the tax acts, passed from time to time, that such taxes are to be set to the guardian per sonally.[† Thus, in the fourth section, the assessors are required to distinguish any sum assessed on any person as guardian, or for any estate held in trust, &c. Nor can we perceive any inconvenience resulting from this. The guardian is taxed for no property, but what he has under his control. He can raise a sum necessary for the payment of !he tax, as easily as others can procure it from property they hold in their own right. He knows, too, the proportion which each of his wards is chargeable with, and can make each of them debtor for his or her share.

¶3We see nothing in the conduct of the defendants in this case, but what they had a right, and, indeed, were bound by the duty of their office, to do. The plaintiff must, therefore, be called.

¶4Plaintiff nonsuit

¶5 So by Rev. Stal. c. 7, § 10 (fourth clause). — Ed.]

/13/mass/493 · .json · Public domain