[Download] "Amory Et Al. v. Assessors Boston" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Amory Et Al. v. Assessors Boston
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 31, 1941
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 69 KB
Description
RONAN, Justice. This petition, brought by more than ten taxpayers of Boston under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 40, § 53, alleges that the respondent assessors have for many years adopted a practice of valuing many parcels of the taxable real estate of the city, principally property used for commercial purposes and some parcels used for residential purposes, in amounts that they knew were far in excess of the fair cash value of such property, while other taxable property has not been overvalued; that the real estate so overvalued is located in the business district which comprises 'those sections of said city commonly known as the retail district, the market district, the financial district, the insurance district, the wholesale district and the water front, and also in the Back Bay and the South End'; that other real estate has not been overvalued; that as a result of said practice the assessors have been enabled to fix the tax rate much lower than it would have been if the said property had been valued at its fair cash value, and the debt limit within which the city has been authorized to incur indebtedness has exceeded the limit that would have been established if the said property had not been overvalued; that the assessors intend to follow this practice in valuing such property for 1941 and to assess a tax thereon based upon said valuation. The petition prayed for an order restraining the respondents from valuing taxable property otherwise than at its fair cash value as determined by their honest judgment. The Judge overruled the respondents' demurrer and reported his ruling to this court. Proceedings brought against municipal officers to prevent the illegal expenditure of funds or the abuse of corporate power in raising money by taxation in a manner not authorized by law do not come within the general principles of equity jurisprudence, and the right to bring and maintain such proceedings is measured entirely by the statute itself. Baldwin v. Wilbraham, 140 Mass. 459, 4 N.E. 829; Steele v. Municipal Signal Co., 160 Mass. 36, 35 N.E. 105; Stone v. Hughes, Treasurer of Malden, 309 Mass. 300, 34 N.E.2d 610. They cannot be brought to attack collaterally the validity of an order of the proper tribunal in altering a highway or in eliminating a grade crossing, or to try the title to public office, or to compel an official to enforce some provision of the , or to rescind a contract on the ground of fraud imposed upon a town, or to test the reasonableness of rates charged by a town for supplying water. Fisk v. Springfield, 116 Mass. 88; Prince v. Boston, 148 Mass. 285, 19 N.E. 218; Parsons v. Northampton, 154 Mass. 410, 28 N.E. 350; Seward v. Revere Water Co., 201 Mass. 453, 87 N.E. 749; Kelley v. Board of Health of Peabody, 248 Mass. 165, 143 N.E. 39; Ashton v. Treasurer of Fall River, 287 Mass. 276, 191 N.E. 393; Dube v. Mayor of Fall River, 308 Mass. 12, 30 N.E.2d 817. Petitions within the scope of the statute are subject to the general rules governing the sufficiency of the pleadings, equitable defences, the granting of injunctions and other matters pertaining to suits in equity. Parsons v. Northampton, 154 Mass. 410, 28 N.E. 350; Conners v. Lowell, 246 Mass. 279, 140 N.E. 742; Fuller v. Trustees of Deerfield Academy, 252 Mass. 258, 147 N.E. 878; Dealtry v. Selectmen of Watertown, 279 Mass. 22, 180 N.E. 621. Ordinarily, an injunction is not granted without a showing that it is reasonably necessary in order that adequate relief be afforded a plaintiff or where the substantial rights of a plaintiff cannot otherwise be fully and fairly protected. Gray v. Howell, 292 Mass. 400, 403, 404, 198 N.E. 516. Proprietors of Cemetery of Mt. Auburn v. Massachusetts Unemployment Compensation Commission, 301 Mass. 211, 16 N.E.2d 666; Boston & Maine Railroad v. Whitehead, 307 Mass. 106, 29 N.E.2d 916.