
    Isaac Tyler vs. Inhabitants of Hardwick.
    The provision in Rev. Sts. c. 8, § 5, that u if, in the assessors’ lists, or in their warrant and list committed to the collectors, there shall be any error in the name of any person taxed, the tax assessed to him may, notwithstanding such error, be collected of the person intended to be taxed, provided he is taxable, and can be identified by the assessors,v applies to the case of a person whose surname only is inserted in the list of the valuation and in the tax list committed to the collector.
    Assumpsit to recover back the amount of a tax assumed to be assessed on the plaintiff, in the year 1840, by the assessors of the town of Hardwick, and by him paid on compulsion. Trial in the couit of common pleas, before Warren, J., who reported the case, as follows:
    “ It was admitted, that the amount claimed by the plaintiff was paid by him to the defendants’ collector of taxes, on compulsion ; and the only question was, whether any tax was legally assessed on the plaintiff, by said assessors, in the year aforesaid. It was also admitted, that the said assessors, before proceeding to make any assessment, gave notice, in the manner required by the Rev. Sts. c. 7, <§> 19, to the inhabitants of said town, to bring in lists of their polls and estates, and that the plaintiff did not carry any such list to the assessors. It was further admitted, that when said assessors made the valuation of the estates subject to taxation, and when the list of the valuation, and the assessment thereon, was made, and when the same was deposited in the assessors’ office, and when the tax list was committed to the collector, the Christian and surname of the plaintiff were not borne on either of said lists; but the valuation list, and the tax list, committed to the collector, bore the name of Tyler only; and that the collector, after the tax list was committed to him, inserted the name ‘Isaac’ before the word ‘ Tyler.’ It did not appear whether this was done before or after he compelled the plaintiff to pay the amount of the tax. The defendants then offered evidence to show that the plaintiff was an inhabitant of Hardwick, in the year 1840, and liable to taxation there; that there were other persons oí the name of Tyler, then resident and liable to taxation there, but that the Christian and surname of such other persons were borne upon said valuation and tax lists; that when the assessment was made, the assessors intended to assess the plaintiff, and that he was the person meant to be designated by the word ‘ Tyler.’ The court rejected this evidence. No evidence was offered tending to show that the plaintiff was ever known or called by any other name than that of Isaac Tyler. Upon these facts, the court ruled, that no tax had been legally assessed upon the plaintiff, and instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, which was returned for him accordingly.”
    The defendants alleged exceptions to the said ruling and ?i struction.
    
      Washburn & J. W. Fletcher, for the defendants.
    The provision of Rev. Sts. c 7, ■§>>§> 30, 31, that the valuation and tax list shall contain “ the names of the inhabitants assessed,” was substantially complied with by the assessors; and a substantial compliance with the statute provision is all that is necessary to render an assessment legal. Welles v. Battelle, 11 Mass. 477. Blackburn v. Inhabitants of Walpole, 9 Pick. 97. Sprague v. Bailey, 19 Pick. 441. Torrey v. Inhabitants of Millbury, 21 Pick. 66. Assessors are not bound to know the Christian name of every taxable inhabitant, nor is the whole burden of taxa tion to fall on those only whose Christian names are known to the assessors.
    The plaintiff’s laches, in omitting to furnish a list of his property, was the cause of the omission of his Christian name in the valuation and tax list, and he should not be permitted to take advantage of his own neglect.
    Besides; the Rev. Sts. c. 8, ■§> 5, declare that error of names, in the assessors’ lists, or in their warrant and list committed to the collector, shall not prevent the collection of a tax, if the party erroneously named be liable to taxation, and can be identified as the person intended to be taxed. The note of the commissioners, who prepared this section, shows that it was intended to apply to a case like the present. See also Alvord v. Collin, 20 Pick. 426.
    
      Barton, for the plaintiff.
    The Rev. Sts. c. 7, 1, 2, direct that taxes shall be assessed ‘ in the manner ’ thereafter provided in the same chapter. By “§>15, the state treasurer, when he sends a tax act to assessors, is to send therewith blanks for invoice and valuation books, exhibiting distinctly (among other things) “ the names of the persons assessed.” By §§ 29, 30, assessors are to deposit a list of the valuation, and the assessment thereon, in their office for public inspection, and the first part of said list is to contain “ the names of the inhabitants assessed.” So, by <§>31, the tax list committed to collectors is to contain the “ names ” of the persons taxed.
    The plaintiff, if he had inspected the valuation, could not have known that he was intended by ‘ Tyler ’; for how could he have known that the names of all the other Tylers in Hardwick were on the list ?
    In Torrey v. Inhabitants of Millbury, 21 Pick. 67, it is said by Shaw, C. J., “ one rule is very plain and well settled; that all those measures, which are intended for the security of the citizen, for ensuring an equality of taxation, and to enable every one to know, with reasonable certainty, for what polls and for what real and personal estate he is taxed, and for what all those who are liable with him are taxed, are conditions precedent, and if they are not observed, he is not legally taxed, and he may resist it.” This doctrine is exactly applicable to the case at bar.
    All the decisions cited for the defendants proceeded on the ground that the omissions by assessors were of formal matters only. In the present case, the omission was of a matter of substance.
    The provision cited from Rev. Sts. c. 8, <§> 5, does not relate to the valuation, but to the tax list only. Besides; in the present case there was not an “error in the name” of the plaintiff. No name was inserted, either in the valuation or the tax list. In our community, the use of a single name is not allowable, and no one can be legally designated thereby.
    
      
       That note is in these words: “ Much difficulty has arisen in large towns, from unavoidable mistakes in the names of persons taxed, who are ready to take advantage of the most trivial errors, in order to evade their assessments; and the provision of this section is respectfully submitted for the purpose of drawing the attention of the legislature to the subject. If the party can be identified, there seems to be no good reason why he should be permitted to avail himself of at error, which, even in the strictest legal proceedings, would be amendable.”
    
   Shaw, C. J.

This action is brought to recover back money alleged to have been paid under compulsion, as a town tax. The objection is, that the plaintiff’s Christian name was not inserted in the valuation, nor in the list and warrant committed to the collector, but only his surname of Tyler.

The question arising from the facts in the case is, whether the plaintiff was rightfully required by the collector to pay the tax, or whether, as a tax unlawfully levied, he was wrongfully required to pay it, and can recover it back in this action.

Whilst, on the one hand, it is important to the security of the citizen, that as much regularity and uniformity as is practicable should be maintained in the system of direct taxation, and many laws directory to the public officers have been framed with a view to the attainment of that object; it is also important that, as far as practicable, all persons liable to taxation should pay their just proportion of the public charges, and not escape by means of slight mistakes or frivolous objections.

One of the statutes, to which we have been referred, is designed to promote this object, by providing that a tax shall not be avoided by an error or mistake in the name, if in fact the party whose name was mistaken be liable to taxation, and was the person intended by the assessors to be taxed. Rev. St. c. 8, <§. 5. The provision is this: “ If, in the assessors’ lists, or in their warrant and list committed to the collectors, there shall be any error in the name of any person taxed, the tax assessed to him may, notwithstanding such error, be collected of the person intended to be taxed, provided he is taxable, and can be identified by the assessors.”

The only question then is, whether this clause was intended to apply to a case where the error in the name exists as well in the valuation as in the assessors’ warrant to the collector.

It was argued, that all which was intended is, that when the name is right in the valuation, but erroneously transcribed into the warrant, the tax shall not be avoided, as the warrant can be corrected by the valuation. But we think the statute was ‘ntended to go much farther, and to provide for a mistake in both. The words “ assessors’ lists,” in this clause, stand for the valuation, and “ their warrant and list ” are described as that which is committed to the collectors.” The statute is plain and explicit, and covers all cases of error in the name, and was intended, we think, to apply to a case where the name is mistaken by omitting, as well as by adding or by misnaming. The only things required are, that the person shall be liable to taxation, and be in fact the person intended to be taxed under such designation. (See commissioners’ note, cited by the defendants’ counsel.) These facts must of necessity be proved by evidence aliunde. The fact of the identity of the party, and the intention of the assessors, must in general be proved by them.

Such seems to us to be the true construction of the statute; and though it may sometimes lead to consequences, operating hardly upon individuals, it will be attended practically with little danger, and with less evil than the escape of persons from paying a just share of the tax, on account of formal errors and mistakes. It is not to be overlooked that such errors will, in most cases, arise from the default of the tax-paying inhabitant himself, who fails to perform the duty, required by law, of giving in his name and list to the assessors.

Upon this view of the statute, the court are of opinion, that the evidence should have been received, and that notwithstanding the alleged error in not inserting the plaintiff’s Christian name, he was liable to the tax, and compellable to pay it, if the facts were proved, the evidence of which was offered; and therefore that the verdict must be set aside, and a new trial had.  