TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cochran v. Guild

Samuel Q. Cochran v. Curtis Guild

Cochran v. Guild, 106 Mass. 29 (1870)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1870
Judges
Chapman
Citations
106 Mass. 29
Headnotes
Taxes on land are an incumbrance thereon from the date of their assessment.
Summary
Contract on a covenant against incumbrances in a deed from the defendant to the plaintiff of land in Boston. The case was submitted to the judgment of the superior court, and, on appeal, of this court, on facts agreed as follows: The deed was dated and delivered June 20,1868. The city, county and state taxes were assessed in Boston on the premises, May 1,1868, to the defendant, who was then owner. The tax bill was issued as usual in the city of Boston, and committed to the collector, October 1,1868. Payment was demanded of the defendant, who refused to pay, and the plaintiff was obliged to pay to prevent the estate from being sold. The plaintiff was to recover of the defendant the amount so paid, if the tax was at the date of the deed an incumbrance upon the estate within the meaning of the covenant.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Chapman

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Chapman, C. J.

On May 1, 1868, when the taxes were as-

sessed, the land became liable for their payment. It is true that payment was not to be made till the tax bills should be made out and put into the hands of the collector, and all the necessary preliminary steps should be taken on his part. It is also true that they might be collected otherwise than by a sale of the land, and thus its liability might terminate, or it might cease by lapse of time. But they have not been paid otherwise, and the purchaser has been compelled to pay them. He was obliged to pay them in order to relieve the land from a liability to which it was subject when he took his conveyance with the covenant against incumbrances. These taxes had all the characteristics of an incumbrance. What constituted the incumbrance was the present paramount right of the city to hold the land subject to the payment of the taxes already assessed, if they should not be paid otherwise. It is none the less an incumbrance because the taxes might be collected otherwise. It might as well be contended that a mortgage to secure a note given by a third person was not an incumbrance, because the note might be collected of the maker. It is contended that this is no morel an incumbrance than the liability of the land for the taxes that may be assessed in future years. But the obvious difference is, that there can be no liability for an assessment which does not exist, and the covenant relates merely to existing incumbrances.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1874–1875: 21876–1877: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 11884–1885: 21888–1889: 11892–1893: 11896–1897: 11904–1905: 21924–1925: 11926–1927: 11936–1937: 11950–1951: 118742026peak 1874 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cooper v. Island Realty Co.16 Haw. 92 (1904)
  2. Carr v. Dooley119 Mass. 294 (1876)
  3. Richardson v. City of Boston20 N.E. 166 (Mass. 1889)
  4. H. H. Brown Co. v. Commissioner8 B.T.A. 112 (B.T.A. 1927)
  5. Blackie v. Hudson117 Mass. 181 (1875)
  6. Merriam v. Goodlett54 N.W. 686 (Neb. 1893)

Most recent

  1. Lafond v. Frame99 N.E.2d 51 (Mass. 1951)
  2. City of Denver v. Tax Research Bureau71 P.2d 809 (Colo. 1937)
  3. H. H. Brown Co. v. Commissioner8 B.T.A. 112 (B.T.A. 1927)
  4. Logan v. Luukinen231 P. 184 (Or. 1924)
  5. Territory of Arizona v. Perrin83 P. 361 (Ariz. 1905)
  6. Cooper v. Island Realty Co.16 Haw. 92 (1904)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list