
    Phinehas Colburn versus George Ellis and Others
    Where one was, with his poll and estate, by a private statute, set from the town of A., to a parish in B., forever thereafter to be considered as belonging to the said parish, there to do duty and enjoy parish privileges; it was held that a person afterwards living on the same estate was a member of the parish in B., and eligible as an assessor thereof; although as to municipal rights and duties he continued an inhabitant of A.
    
    A collector of taxes is competent to collect taxes granted and agreed on before his appointment to office.
    This action, which was trespass for an assault and false imprisonment of the plaintiff by the defendants, came before the Court upon certain agreed facts; from which it appears, that the defendants were duly appointed assessors of the third parish in Dedham, on the 14th of March, 1808; that during the same year the parish granted sundry taxes for parish purposes, which the defendants assessed upon the parishioners, and amongst them upon the plaintiff, who was a member of the parish, and was assessed his just proportion of the taxes; that the assessments, with a regular warrant, were committed by the defendants, on the 27th of March, 1809, to one [ * 90 ] Ichabod Elis, who had been on that day * duly chosen and qualified as a collector of the parish for the then ensuing year, and the said assessments were so committed to him in consequence of a regular vote of the parish, before new assessors were elected; that there was a collector duly chosen and qualified for the year 1808 ; that the said Ichabod Ellis, by virtue of the said warrant, and after demand and refusal by the plaintiff to pay his said tax, and after waiting the time required by law, took him and committed him. to prison until he paid the same; that John Richards, one of the defendants, was, while assessor as aforesaid, an inhabitant of the town of Walpole, but he owned and lived upon the farm, which was owned and occupied by Enoch Elis, at the date of an act of the government, passed February 12, 1784, by which it was enacted that the said Enoch Ellis, and others in the said act mentioned, with their polls and estates, should be set off from the town of Walpole, and annexed to the third parish in the town of Dedham, and forever thereafter be considered as belonging thereunto, there to do duty and enjoy parish privileges; the said Enoch Ellis, while living and dwelling on said farm, and the said Richards, since he has owned and resided thereon, viz. more than thirteen years, having attended public worship, enjoyed parish privileges, been assessed to taxes, served in parish offices, and done other parish duties, in the said third parish of Dedham.
    
    If the Court should be of opinion that the said assessments were legal, notwithstanding said Richards was an inhabitant of Walpole, and that they were lawfully committed to the said Ichabod Ellis, it was agreed that the plaintiff should become nonsuit; otherwise the defendants should be defaulted, and judgment be rendered against them for twenty-three dollars damage, and for the plaintiff’s costs.
    
      Hastings, for the plaintiff,
    argued that the persons set off by the act referred to, in the statement of facts, had only a personal privilege, which ceased at their death; but perceiving the Court [ * 91 ] inclining strongly against him on this point, he *did not press it. But he contended more seriously on the other point, that Ichabod Elis, to whom the assessment and warrant were committed, was not authorized by law to collect the taxes for the year 1808. For this he relied on the general statute of 1785, c. 70, respecting the power and duty of collectors. By the 16th section of that act, any parish is empowered to choose, annually in the month of March, one or more collectors of all such rates or assessments as 
      
      shall be granted or agreed upon by such parish; the plain meaning of which provision, he insisted, was, that a collector had authority to collect such taxes only as might be granted or agreed upon after he was in office ; whereas the case here finds these taxes, for which the plaintiff was imprisoned, were granted and agreed upon during the year preceding that for which the collector was appointed.
    
      J. Richardson for the defendants.
   By the Court.

Two grounds have been taken in support of this action. The first relates to the authority of the assessors, one of whom lived upon and owned a farm in the adjoining town of Wal pole, which farm was owned and occupied in February, 1794, by one Enoch Ellis, who was, by the private statute of 17'83, c. 27, with several other persons named in the act, together with their polls and estates, set off from Walpole and annexed to the third parish in Dedham, to which parish the act declares they shall forever thereafter be considered as belonging, there to do duty and enjoy parish privileges.

The effect of this act was permanently to alter the boundaries of" the parish, so far as to include therein the lands then owned by the persons named in the act, and to make every person afterwards living upon those lands, or upon any part of them, members of the parish in Dedham, although as to municipal duties and rights they continued to be inhabitants of Walpole.

It follows, then, that Richards, one of the assessors, who owned and lived upon the farm which, at the date of the act *of 1784, belonged to Enoch Ellis, was eligible as an [ * 92 ] assessor of the parish, and, when chosen and sworn, was legally authorized to execute the duties of that office.

The second point applies to the authority of the collector; and a provision of the statute of 1785, c. 70, for the choice and appointment of collectors, and for ascertaining their power and duty, has been cited in support of this objection.

But the meaning of the provision is misconceived. When the statute gives authority to collectors to collect all such assessments as shall be granted or agreed upon, it intends all such assessments as should be granted or agreed upon after the passing of the law; and not after the appointment of the collector.

Neither of the points made for the plaintiff being in our opinion sufficient to support his action, the defendants are entitled to judgment.

Plaintiff nonsuit.  