
    Thayer versus Stearns et al.
    
    By St. 1786, c. 50,1 the State, county and town taxes are required to be assessed separately and put into separate lists or assessments. But it seems that a separate warrant for collecting each of them is not necessary.
    The valuation (or a copy of it) which is the basis of any assessment must be lodged in the town-clerk’s office, or in an assessors’ office, before the assessment can be valid.
    The papers belonging to a board of assessors were kept in a small trunk under a lock and key, and the trunk and key were usually kept by the principal assessor, but sometimes the other assessors took them$ and the assessors had no particular building appropriated as an office, but transacted their business at each other’s houses. Held, that here was no assessors’ office within the meaning of the statute.
    Trespass for taking a chaise, &c., the property of the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and filed a brief statement, pursuant to the statute, wherein they justified as assessors of the town of Milford for the year 1819.
    At the trial, before Putnam J., the plaintiff objected, that the valuation and assessment made by the defendants were not recorded in the town book, nor an exact copy thereof, by them signed, left with the town-clerk, nor filed in the assessors’ office, before the warrant for collecting the taxes was committed to the constable. In relation to this, the defendants proved that the assessment, valuation and other papers be longing to their board were kept in a small trunk under a lock and key ; that the principal assessor usually kept the key and the trunk, but that sometimes the other assessors took them ; and that the assessors met at the house, sometimes of one of them, and sometimes of another, to make the taxes ; but no particular building was occupied as an office of the assessors. It was admitted that neither the valuation nor a copy of it was left in the town-clerk’s office.
    The plaintiff also objected, that there was but one warrant for the collection of the State, county and town taxes, and contended that there should have been a separate warrant for each denomination.
    He further objected, that the assessment did not distinguish the amounts of the State, county and town taxes, but that it blended the whole in one aggregate sum.
    But see St. 1823, c. 138, passed since this decision was made.
    
      There were in any other facts in the case, but tnose above stated present the points upon which it was determined.
    A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the whole Court.
    
      Lincoln and Newton, for the defendants.
    The word office in St. 1785, c. 50, has no technical meaning. It has reference to the place where the business of the assessors is ordinarily transacted, and their papers usually kept. In this instance the papers were usually kept by the principal assessor, alibough they were not constantly in his possession ; and so, if a particular building had been appropriated as the assessors’ office, the papers would sometimes have been taken from it, if it had been found convenient to transact business in another place. The statute was passed in 1785 ; it could not have been intended, at that time, that an assessor should appropriate a room in his house for an assessors’ office. The assessment being signed by the assessors and being in their possession was a filing in their office within the meaning of the statute. Compare § 1 with § 8.
    There is nothing in the St. 1785, c. 50, to prohibit the blending of the several taxes, and the 14th section expressly permits the county tax to be added to any other tax. The object of distinguishing the taxes is to ascertain what portion is to be paid to the treasurers of the State, county, &c., respectively, but this may easily be done by the rule of proportion.
    
      Hastings and Mills, for the plaintiff,
    cited Blossom v. Cannon, 14 Mass. Rep. 177, and Thurston v. Little, 3 Mass. Rep. 429, to the point that the valuation should have been filed in the town-clerk’s or assessors’ office. They referred to §§ 8 and 9 of the statute, to show that separate warrants are required for collecting the State, county and town taxes respectively.
   Parker C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. There are several points in this case which would require much consideration, if it were necessary to give an opinion upon all of them. The objection made by the plaintiff, which we think insuperable, is the blending together the several taxes for State, county and town. We think it clear that the legislature intended that they .should be assessed separately, and put into separate lists or assessments. This intention is manifested by the special provision, on account of the comparative smallness of the county tax, that it may be added to the town or State tax. This provision would not have been necessary, if they might all have been assessed together, and it is never lawful, in the construction )f statutes, to impute useless or frivolous conduct to the legislature. Whether there was any sufficient reason "n our opinion for this separation of the taxes, is of no Importance ; but the object undoubtedly was, to enable the citizen to scrutinize with more facility his taxes, that he might the better exercise his judgment as to their fairness and legality. We think one warrant directing the collection of the taxes might answer, but that the taxes ought to be separately assessed, unless under the provision of the statute in relation to the county tax. As far as our knowledge extends, the practice has uniformly conformed to this opinion of the law.

The objection which relates to the valuation is also material. The statute is peremptory in requiring a valuation as the basis of every tax, and it is absolutely essential that it should be lodged in the clerk’s office, or in an assessors’ office, before an assessment can be valid. If either of the assessors keeps a room for the deposit of papers relating to their office, or for transacting business, this may be an office within the meaning of the law ; but it does not appear that there was any place so used by any of the assessors as to make it an office. The papers were shifted from one hand to another. This seems to us to be exactly the case which was contemplated by the legislature, as requiring the valuation to be lodged in the clerk’s office.

Judgment according to the verdict.  