TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Staman v. Board of Assessors

Eleanor W. Staman & another, trustees v. Board of Assessors of Chatham

Staman v. Bd. of Assessors, 213 N.E.2d 407 (Mass. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 11, 1966
Judges
Whittemore
Citations
213 N.E.2d 407350 Mass. 1001966 Mass. LEXIS 693

Opinion of the Court — Whittemore

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

Whittemore, J.

The appellant taxpayers on September 2, 1965, filed with the Appellate Tax Board a claim of *101 appeal to this court under Gr. L. c. 58A, § 13, from a decision of the board denying an exemption under Gr. L. c. 59, § 5, Third, from the real estate tax assessed in the year 1962 on land in Chatham. Pursuant to an extension granted by the board the time for entry of the appeal in this court expired on November 1, 1965. The statute provides that within twenty days after the filing of the claim or such further time as the board may allow, “the appealing party [1] 1 shall enter the appeal in said court . . . and [2] shall file with the clerk of said court a copy of the record before the board, [3] shall serve by registered mail upon the adverse party a copy of the claim of appeal and a notice that he has entered said appeal and [4] shall file an affidavit of such service with said clerk. . . . For want of prosecution of an appeal in accordance with the provisions of this section . . . a justice . . . may dismiss the appeal.”

The appellants on October 29, 1965, complied with the first three specified steps. The board of assessors on November 3,1965, moved to dismiss the appeal because of the omission of step 4. The affidavit of service was filed on November 8,1965. A single justice reserved and reported the motion.

We hold that the requirement of the filing of an affidavit of service within twenty days was not jurisdictional. Cohen v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 347 Mass. 96 . Halko v. Board of Appeals of Billerica, 349 Mass. 465, 467-468 . Opie v. Board of Appeals of Groton, 349 Mass. 730, 732-734 . W. H. Lailer & Co. Inc. v. C. E. Jackson Co. 75 F. Supp. 827, 828 (D. Mass.). In New England Trust Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 308 Mass. 543 , relied on by the assessors, the claim of appeal omitted required assignments of error. In Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Assessors of Boston, 317 Mass. 694 , the claim of appeal was not seasonably filed with the Appellate Tax Board. No prejudice or other basis for discretionary dismissal is shown.

The motion is to be denied.

So ordered.

Bracketed, figures not in text.

How later courts describe this case

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

1971: 11974: 11975: 11976: 11997: 119712026peak 1971 · 1

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Cohen v. Bd. of Registration in Pharmacy, 196 N.E.2d 838 (Mass. 1964) 20
Halko v. Bd. of Appeals of Billerica, 209 N.E.2d 323 (Mass. 1965) 18
Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Assessors of Boston, 59 N.E.2d 454 (Mass. 1945) 16
Opie v. Bd. of Appeals of Groton, 212 N.E.2d 477 (Mass. 1965) 13
W. H. Lailer & Co. v. C. E. Jackson Co., 75 F. Supp. 827 (D. Mass. 1948) 11
New England Trust Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 33 N.E.2d 268 (Mass. 1941) 10

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