
    Leonard Kingsbery versus Benjamin Slack and Others.
    Where the legislature had set off one with his estate from one parish in a town, and annexed them to another parish, it was held that the effect of the act ceased at the death of the person so set off, and that the land owned by him, with its occupants, then reverted to the former parish.
    This was an action of trespass for taking and carrying away certain chattels of the plaintiff’s. The cause was submitted to the Court on an agreed state of facts, of which the following is the substance.
    On the 17th of June, 1800, an act was passed by the legislature,  reciting in the preamble, that Jonathan Kingsbery, Jun., had represented that it was very inconvenient for him to attend public worship in the westerly precinct * of Needham, to which he then belonged, and praying that he might be annexed to the easterly parish in said Needham; and thereupon enacting that the said Jonathan and his estate be set off from the said precinct, and annexed to the said parish; provided that he should be holden to pay all taxes assessed against him in the precinct prior to the passing of the act; and also that he should be holden to pay his proportion of three hundred dollars, then remaining due to the then minister of the precinct, in part of his settlement, in the same manner as if the act had not been passed.
    The plaintiff is the son of the said Jonathan, and, ever since his father’s death, has owned and occupied the estate intended in the act above recited.
    The defendants are legal assessors of the said westerly precinct, and, in pursuance of a vote'of said precinct to levy a tax for precinct purposes, had assessed the sum so voted on the polls and estates of the said precinct, and also, in due form, assessed on the plaintiff a part of said sum. The assessment, with a warrant to collect the same, were duly delivered to a collector, who distrained the plaintiff’s chattels, which distraining is the trespass complained of.
    If the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff’s estate aforesaid is by law liable to be taxed in the said westerly precinct, he agreed to become nonsuit; otherwise the defendants agreed to be defaulted; and judgment in either event to be rendered accordingly.
    The cause was briefly argued, at the last September term in this county, by Dexter and J. Richardson for the plaintiff, and B. Whitman for the defendants.
    
      For the plaintiff,
    
    it was contended, that the effect of the statute was to annex the estate permanently to the parish, and thus to alter the boundary between the precinct and parish. This was argued from the reason stated in the preamble, viz., the inconvenience to the owner of the estate in attending the precinct meeting; for this inconvenience must, in its nature, be equally great to every one living on * the estate ; and it is proper to presume that the legislature intended the remedy to be as extensive and as durable as the inconvenience. If a mere personal relief to the petitioner, on account of bodily infirmity, or for any other reason, applicable to him only, was all that was asked oi granted, there was no need of the interference of the legislature He might have consulted his' own convenience in choosing which meeting he would attend. Precincts and parishes are territorial cor porations, and the land was all that could be taken from one, ana added to the other. The inhabitants of that land for the time being are made members of the parish. If anothei construction be made, and the charge considered as personal only, it would follow that Jonathan Kingsbery would have continued & member of the parish, if he had sold his estate, and removed into another town or county.
    
      Whitman, for the defendants,
    insisted that the intention of the statute was to give a personal convenience to Jonathan Kingsbzry only; and he argued this from the general policy of the law as tcterritorial parishes, regarding the simplicity of their lines, and theii ability to support the expenses, of public worship. — The preamble implied a personal inconvenience only, and for this only was the remedy provided. — The provisoes, being merely personal, viz., that J. K. himself should pay certain moneys, show also that the whole operation intended to be given to the act was confined to the person, who had petitioned for and was accommodated by it.
    
      
      
        Stat. 180), c. 27. —2 Mass. Special Laws, 404.
    
   The cause stood continued to this term for advisement; and now the justices present delivered their opinions to the following effect:

Parker, J.

The decision of this action depends wholly upon the construction to be given to the statute which set off Jonathan Kingsbery, Jun., and his estate from the westerly precinct, and annexed them to the easterly parish in Needham. The words of the act do not convey to my mind an intention in the legislature to make a permanent * alteration in the territorial limits of the two parishes, but rather to grant a personal convenience to the person, at whose instance the act passed. The inconveniences, which gave rise to his application, might be peculiar to him. A variety of considerations may be conceived, which should make it desirable to him to change his place of worship, which would have no application to his son, or to any person, who might afterwards possess the estate then held by him. The act does not state the inconvenience to arise from the relative situation of the land; nor does it mention the heirs or successors of the then owner; as is, I think, usual and natural, where a permanent transfer of the land from one parish to another is intended to be made It appears to me that as soon as Jonathan Kingsbery died, the statute ceased to operate, and his estate reverted r to the westerly precinct. Of consequence, my opinion is, that the defendants were bound to tax the plaintiff, and that the facts agreed do not support his action.

Sewall, J.

The plaintiff belongs to the westerly precinct in Needham, and is liable to be taxed therein, unless the act of the government, which annexed his father, with his estate, to the easterly parish in that town, has made the land, which then constituted his father’s estate, and which is now the estate of the plaintiff, a part of the latter parish. But I cannot think this to be the true construction of tbe statute in question. Upon looking into the numerous acts which have been made for similar f urposes, I find that where a permanent change is contemplated, the land is described by its boundaries, or in some other manner; and in one act at least it is declared that the land shall forever be, &c., — When nothing of this kind is contained in any such law, I apprehend the legislature must be understood to mean an accommodation merely personal to the individual; that upon his death the provision is at an end, and the land returns to, and again constitutes a part of the territory from * which it was before taken, and, with the owners or occupants, becomes liable to taxes therein.

If the plaintiff is desirous of being attached to the east parish, he may probably obtain his wish by petitioning the legislature, as his father did. Until then I consider him and his estate as lying within the limits of the westerly precinct, and to be legally ratable there. My opinion, of course, is that the defendants, on the facts before us, are not chargeable in this action.

Sedgwick, J.

The question, in this case, for the decision of the Court, upon the facts agreed, is, whether the plaintiff is liable to assessments for parish taxes in the westerly precinct of Needham; ar.d this question depends altogether upon the construction which ought to be given to the act of the legislature, referred to in the case stated. By that act, (which was passed upon the representation of Jonathan Kingsbery, that it was very inconvenient to him to attend the public worship of God in the westerly precinct, and his request to be annexed to the easterly parish in Needham,) it is provided that the said Jonathan and his estate, belonging to the W. pi ecinct, be set off from the said precinct, and annexed to the said E parish.

Was this provision personal to him, or was it a permanent alteration of the territorial limits of the precinct and parish ?

Acts of this kind vary much in their modes of expression. Some of them describe the boundaries of the land intended tobe included in the provision; but much the larger part of them use language similar to that in the act under consideration.

The inconvenience to the then occupant of the land was the ground of passing the law; and no reason has been suggested, and none occurs to my mind, why that inconvenience is not as great to the plaintiff, the present occupant, as it was to his predecessor. The limits of these parishes were altered in the life, of Jonathan Kingsbery; and there is in the statute no time fixed when it should cease to operate. *1 know not that we can put a limitation to it. The reason which occasioned its enactment still existing, I cannot say that it was intended as a personal accommodation to the then tenant only, and that its opera tian ceased at his death.

I might, perhaps, have brought my mind to doubt on this question, if I had not known very many instances, in which the practical construction of provisions of this kind has been, that they were not intended as mere personal grants to the individual named, but as a perpetual annexation of the lands into whose hands soever they might afterwards come.

My opinion, therefore, is, that the plaintiff is a member of the east parish in Needham, and there duly taxable for parochial charges ; and that of course the defendants, assessors of the west precinct, acted without authority of law in taxing him for the charges of that precinct, and thereby made themselves liable to this action of the plaintiff. But a majority of the judges being of a contrary opinion, the judgment of the Court is with the defendants.

Plaintiff nonsuit  