Jennings v. Collins

The assessment of a joint tax on two parcels of land of different owners, based on a joint valuation thereof, creates no lien for the whole or any part of such tax; and no apportionment of such a tax will create a lien, unless made as a formal reassessment of the separate parcel, and based on a separate valuation thereof, with a corresponding change in the assessors’ lists. A writ of entry in behalf of minor heirs cannot be maintained in the name of their guardian, but should be brought in their name by their next friend.

Writ of entry by the guardian of the minor heirs of Francis M. Jennings, in their behalf, to recover two lots of land in Arlington. In the superior court it was agreed that the demanded premises, numbered lots 64 and 66, were formerly part of a large tract of land owned by Nahum Packard, which, prior to July 2, 1855, he divided into house lots numbered from 1 to 100, and, with five other of these lots, were conveyed by Packard to Jennings by warranty deed on that day; and that, prior to 1862, the latter died seised of the same. It was also agreed that in 1862 the five other lots were assessed, for taxes, to the estate of Jennings, but the two demanded lots, together with two additional lots, were assessed in one joint valuation to Packard as follows: “ Nahum Packard, West Bridgewater. Number of lots, 1, 2, 64, 66. 36,260 feet. 1 house, $1700. Land, $940. Total valuation, $2650. Tax, $21.20; ” that Packard represented to the assessors that he did not own lots numbered 64 and 66, and did not know who did own them ; “ that the assessors thereupon apportioned the taxes due on lots 64 and 66, and deducted the same from the tax bill of said Packard, but made no record of such apportionment, and gave the amount so apportioned to the collector, directing him to receive the same as being the amount of the tax due on the said two lots, and, if no one appeared to pay said tax, to advertise and sell the same according to law;” that the collector “ without further demand sold the demanded premises on March 30,1863, for the nonpayment of said taxes so apportioned, to George W. Lane,” through whom by mesne conveyances the tenant claimed title; and that no demand was ever made on the demandant or her wards, nor any notice ever given to her or them of the sale, other than the collector’s advertisement thereof, in which the demanded premises were described as follows: “ Nahum Packard. Lots numbered 64 and 66 on the Packard land, so called, on a plan of 100 house lots surveyed by W. A. Mason, containing 15,000 square feet. Plan recorded. State, county, and town taxes for 1862, $3.50.” And it was further agreed that “ the assessor’s list and books do not show the demanded premises to have been taxed separately for the amount mentioned in said collector’s notice,” but only “ that they were taxed in connection with other lots, and then at a gross valuation;” that neither Jennings nor Packard, nor the demandant, nor any of the wards of the demandant, were ever residents of Arlington; that the demanded premises were never occupied by any one before the tenant; and that from 1855 to 1862 there were the following assessments relating to the premises: During all those years the five other lots bought from Packard by Jennings were assessed as lots, or by the aggregate number of square feet contained in them, to Jennings, or, after his death, to his estate or his heirs. In 1856 lot 64 was assessed to Packard, with certain other lots, at a gross valuation ; but it did not appear to whom lot 66 was assessed. In 1857, 1858 and 1859, there was no designation of lots on the assessors’ lists, and land was assessed to Jennings and Packard respectively “ in the aggregate of feet.” In 1860, lots 64 and 66, together with lots 1 and 2, were assessed to Packard in a gross valuation, ae in 1862. How they were assessed in 1861 did not appear. Judgment was ordered for the demandant, and the tenant appealed.