
    Samuel Payson versus Amos Tufts and Others.
    A guardian of minors is liable to be taxed for the property of his wards in his possession ; and, on his neglect or refusal to pay such tax, the same remedies lie against him, as in case of his neglect or refusal to pay the tax set upon his own estate.
    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.
    The defendants were assessors for the said town for the year 1814, duly qualified, &c. The plaintiff was an inhabitant of the same town on the first day of May in that year, and was then, and ever since has been, guardian of certain minors, also inhabitants of said town, children and heirs of Phillips Payson, late of said Charles-town, deceased.
    The plaintiff, as their guardian, had, at that time, and ever since, the possession and care of the said minors’ property, it being personal, and in value not less „than the *sum at which he was assessed as their guardian, as hereafter mentioned.
    The defendants, on the 22d of September, 1814, taxed the plaintiff in manner following, namely, “ Samuel Payson, guardian of the children of Phillips Payson, deceased, State tax, personal, six dollars, town and county, personal, thirty-nine dollars.” This was the plaintiff’s just proportion as guardian, if he be liable. The defendants also assessed the plaintiff for his own property, distinct from the tax assessed on him as guardian as aforesaid.
    The plaintiff duly paid the taxes which were assessed upon him in his own right, but refused to pay those which were assessed on him as guardian ; whereupon the collector distrained the chattels mentioned in the declaration, and sold the same according to law; returning the surplus, and giving an account to the plaintiff.
    If, in the opinion of the Court, the said tax was rightfully assessed on the plaintiff, and the proceedings thereon regular, the plaintiff agreed to become nonsuit; otherwise the defendants were to be defaulted, and judgment rendered against them for forty-eight dollars damage, with costs.
    
      Gorham, for the plaintiff,
    contended, that the personal property of minors was not by law taxable. They are not capable of giving in to the assessors an account of their property, nor of swearing to such account. They are not liable to arrest for neglecting to pay taxes assessed upon them. They have not discretion to apply for abatements when overrated.
    But, if their property is liable to assessment, the tax should not be assessed on the guardian personally, so as to make him liable to arrest and imprisonment. The guardian is not by law liable, in his own person or property, for his ward, unless guilty of waste or other gross misconduct. He is not the owner of the property, as an executor or administrator is ; nor is he even trustee, except of estates mortgaged to him for the benefit of his ward.
    * Further, if it is regular to set the tax to the guardian, the minors ought to be named, and thei" respective proportions
    
      of the tax specified. In this case they are not named, nor even the number of them stated. The plaintiff had no means of distributing this general charge amongst his wards, yet his account must be with each separately.
    Tufts, for the defendants.
   Per Curiam.

There 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.

It 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.

We 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.

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