that the repeal of this act did not enable one The act for the building of the State House was unlicensed to recover for medical services ren- conditioned upon the inhabitants of Montpelier dered before the repeal. Warner v. Saxby, 12 paying into the treasury a certain sum. Vt. 146. SUBSCRIPTION. The State House was built. Held, that the defendant's contract was not void, as being either without consideration, or against public policy, and that an action lay thereon in the name either of the treasurer, or (by statute) of the State. State Treasurer v. Cross, 9 Vt. 289. 24 Vt. 196. 1. A subscription made to the University of Vermont for the purpose of erecting college 8. Where the subscriptions to a subscripbuildings, accepted by the corporation and upon tion paper for the building of a meeting house the faith of which expense has been incurred, was held to be upon sufficient consideration, and mutual, and binding. University v. Buell, 2 Vt. 48. 9 Vt. 293. 24 Vt. 196. 66 were made payable to the treasurer of a certain religious society, but (as construed) independent of the society ;-Held, that the subscriptions should be understood not as promises to the Blodgett v. 2. The defendant signed a subscription society, but to the plaintiff who was treasurer, paper for the erection of certain college build- as a trustee for the subscribers; and that an ings, promising to pay $50, in labor or action thereon lay in his name. materials, at his option, another season." Held, Morrill, 20 Vt. 509. 3 Vt. 233. that no special demand of payment or notice was necessary, where the defendant had knowledge that the work was going on. Ib. 9. The defendant, with others, signed a subscription paper by which he agreed to pay the plaintiffs, an incorporated academy, $100, 3. In an action upon a subscription for a for the purpose of enabling the plaintiffs to pay college, it was held to be a good defense that the debts of the academy, provided that the the subscription was obtained by false repre- sum of $20,000 should be subscribed by a day sentations, and by the procuring of other named. The plaintiffs procured the full sum to apparent but unreal subscriptions, as an be subscribed by the day named, and incurred inducement for others to subscribe, &c. Mid- expenses in so doing. Held, that the agreedlebury College v. Loomis, 1 Vt. 189. Same v. Williamson, 1 Vt. 212. ment disclosed a sufficient consideration; that the relation of the defendant to the other subscribers and to the plaintiff estopped him from denying the obligation of his subscription, and that he was liable in an action thereon. Troy Academy v. Nelson, 24 Vt. 189. 4. In an action on the defendant's subscription for the building of a meeting house ;Held, that he could not prove in defense, that the plaintiff's agent procured such subscription upon the verbal assurance that he wanted the 10. Defendant subscribed $25, to help defendant's signature to influence others to plaintiffs rebuild their mill, upon condition that sign, and that if he would sign he should their creditors would "sign a paper not to never be called on to pay. Blodgett v. Morrill, embarrass or molest them for three years." 20 Vt. 509. 24. Vt. 477. Their creditors signed a paper agreeing to for 5. And held, that it was not a defense that bear, if plaintiffs would pay them in certain a subscription upon the same paper, previous instalments commencing within the three years to the defendant's, had been obtained by like and extending beyond, and would not file assurances. Ib. a petition in bankruptcy. The defendant after 6. Where subscriptions were made to a wards, not knowing but the condition of his college to create a permanent fund for its sup- subscription had been complied with, paid $10 port, conditioned that a certain amount should upon it and promised to pay the balance. He be subscribed in order to the subscriptions afterwards sued to recover back the $10 paid becoming binding, and that if the college should and judgment was rendered against him. In receive a sum beyond that, then the subscrip- an action to recover the balance of the subscriptions should be reduced pro rata;-Held, that tion;-Held, (1), that the condition had not a reduction of the subscriptions below the been complied with; (2), that the payment of minimum named, by the votes and acts of the part, under the circumstances, was not a college, or the substitution of land for cash waiver, and the promise to pay the balance payments, operated to release any subscriber was without consideration; (3), that said judgnot assenting thereto. Middlebury College, v.ment was not conclusive upon his rights in this Williamson, 1 Vt. 212. case. Judgment for defendant. Felt v. Davis, 7. The defendant, with others, signed a sub- 48 Vt. 506. scription paper agreeing to pay the sum set against their names respectively to the treasurer of the State, towards the building of a State House at Montpelier, where they resided. SUNDAY. party to his election, whether to affirm or disaffirm the contract. If he declines to make 1. Sunday contract. A contract for the restitution or compensation, this is an affirmsale or exchange of horses, made in the usual ance of the contract. Ib. way and under the circumstances which usually 8. Where a horse was sold on Sunday and a attend those transactions, is a "secular labor note given therefor on the same day;-Held, and employment," prohibited by the statute to that the subsequent retaining of the horse withbe performed on the Lord's day, and if con- out offer to return, and payments upon the cluded on that day, is therefore void; and a note, were an affirmation and ratification of the warranty given in such trade cannot be en- note. Sumner v. Jones, 24 Vt. 317. forced. Lyon v. Strong, 6 Vt. 219. Mattocks, 9. J., dissenting. 2. A promissory note made upon Sunday, not being a work of necessity or charity, is void, although done in consummation of a previous contract. Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379. An award. An award made and published on Sunday, where the hearing was commenced on Saturday and prolonged until after midnight, was held not void; but, if void, that a subsequent promise to pay, ratified and confirmed it. Sargeant v. Butts, 21 Vt. 99. Blood v. Bates, 31 Vt. 147. 3. If a promissory note is signed and abso- 10. Work of necessity and charity. lutely and unconditionally delivered to the Healing the sick, or employing a physician so payee, or his agent, on Sunday, no recovery to do, upon Sunday, is a work of "necessity can be had upon it without a subsequent and charity," excepted from the prohibition of promise to pay it, or acknowledgment of it as the Sabbath act (G. S. c. 93); and a contract a subsisting obligation. Goss v. Whitney, 27 therefor made upon Sunday is valid. Smith v. Vt. 272. Watson, 14 Vt. 332. 4. If made upon Sunday, but not delivered 11. Labor done in the making of maple until upon a subsequent secular day, it is valid, sugar upon Sunday, "where it was necessary taking effect only upon delivery. Ib. Love-in order to save a great waste of sap," was held joy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379. to be "work of necessity" under the Sabbath 5. A contract made upon Sunday in another act. Whitcomb v. Gilman, 35 Vt. 297. State is no violation of the statute of this State, 12. Traveling-Town. A town is not and is not so far contra bonos mores at common liable to one who is unlawfully traveling on law, that it cannot be enforced in this State. Sunday, for an injury occasioned by the insuffiAdams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358. ciency of its highway. Johnson v. Irasburgh, upon 47 Vt. 28. 6. Ratification. Contracts made Sunday are not tainted with any general 13. The necessity which will excuse one for illegality; they are illegal only as to the time traveling on Sunday must be real and not in which they are entered into. It is not suffi- fancied. It is not an honest belief that a necescient to avoid them, that they have grown out sity for traveling exists, but the actual existof a transaction upon Sunday; they must be ence of the necessity which renders traveling finally closed on that day; and although on Sunday lawful. Ib. closed on that day, yet if affirmed upon a 14. A journey on Sunday to visit one's subsequent day, they then become valid. Ib. children who are away from home is not unlaw7. Where a contract, made upon Sunday, ful; and the statute prohibiting travel on that remains executory upon both sides, it is simply day "except from necessity and charity," does void until subsequently affirmed by mutual not, in such case, bar a recovery for an injury consent. Where either party has done any-received on such journey through the insuffithing under it, he may demand restitution of ciency of a highway. McClary v. Lowell, 44 the thing delivered, or where that is impracti- Vt. 116. cable, compensation, and thus put the other! I. II. III. IV. TAXES. POWER TO TAX; NATURE OF TAX. 1. The rate bill and warrant. 4. Collector's liability. V. REMEDIES FOR WRONGFUL TAXATION. 2. Against selectmen, and listers. VI. SALE 1. General rules. 2. Rate bill and warrant. ord; certificate. 4. Sale; return; record. &c. 3. Advertisement; publication ; T. TAX rec was properly set in the list to the plaintiff as "agent" of H; (2), that the legislature had the right to tax property so situated. Ib. 4. The owner of the stocks of other States of the United States, residing in this State, may be legally assessed and taxed therefor in this State. Webb v. Burlington, 28 Vt. 188. 5. Delegation of power-By-law. Under a village corporation act empowering the corporation to make by-laws relating to their common and the shade and ornamental trees thereon, and to raise taxes to carry into effect any legal vote or by-law, a tax laid, according to a vote, for building a fence around and inclosing the common, was sustained. Hutchinson v. Pratt, 11 Vt. 402. 6. Terms "Public taxes." The charter of the town of Wheelock, granted by the State, conveying the territory to the President of Dartmouth College, provided that the lands 5. Other requirements bond, oath, should be free and exempt from public taxes, so long, &c. Held, that this was not an exemp 6. The purchaser-right acquired, &c. tion from local municipal taxes, such as town, I. POWER TO TAX; NATURE OF TAX. 1. Grant from State. It is only where exemption from taxation forms a condition or consideration of a grant from the State, that the legislature is, by the constitution, deprived of the power to tax the thing granted; that is, where so to do would impair the obligation of the contract. Herrick v. Randolph, 13 Vt. 525. 27 Vt. 146. parish, district and village taxes, assessed upon and to be expended for the use and immediate benefit of the particular municipality. Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt. 773. 7. Tax not "a contract debt." A tax is not a contract express or implied, nor properly a debt. Johnson v. Howard, 41 Vt. 122. Webster v. Seymour, 8 Vt. 140. 8. The acts of congress exempting a soldier from arrest for any “debt or contract," do not protect him from arrest for non-payment of a 2. Situs of property. The doctrine that tax upon taxable property set in the list against the situs of personal property follows the domi- him, before his enlistment. Webster v. Seycile of the owner, is subject to the limita-mour. tion, that the State within whose jurisdic- 9. A town, summoned as trustee, cannot Idiction it is actually situate has as entire apply upon its indebtedness to the principal dominion over it, while therein, in point of defendant an unpaid town tax against him. sovereignty and jurisdiction, as it has over Johnson v. Howard, 41 Vt. 122. immovables situate there; and this extends to the power of taxation, &c. Catlin v. Hull, 21 Vt. 152. 10. The State, town, &c., to which a tax is payable is not a creditor in such sense as that the doctrine of fraud in law, as to change of possession of chattels sold, applies. Daniels v. Nelson, 41 Vt. 161. does not draw interest, either before or after demand of payment. Shaw v. Peckett, 26 Vt. 482. (1851.) 3. H, a resident of New York, inherited from his father, who at his death was a resident citizen of this State, personal estate consisting 11. The assessment of a tax does not create of debts due from solvent debtors resident in a debt that can be enforced by suit, and the tax this State, evidenced by promissory notes; and he appointed the plaintiff, a resident of this State, his agent, upon a salary, to manage the property, with discretionary power to col- 12. Where the collector arrested a tax-payer lect and re-loan and keep on interest. Held, for the purpose of enforcing payment of inter(1), that such property was embraced in Stat. est upon the tax ;-Held, that the arrest was 1844, No. 9, for purposes of taxation, as per- illegal, for that no interest was chargeable upon sonal estate "held in trust" by "an agent," and taxes, although the tax-payer, in this case, had neglected and refused for more than five years ment and taxation as a resident of Braintree on after demand made, to pay the tax, and had the first day of April, 1855. Ib. been out of the State. Ib. 18. Held, that where the right to tax a person 13. When an "incumbrance." In case in a particular town is the question, the burden of a non-resident proprietor, taxes become an is upon the town, claiming the right, to prove incumbrance upon the land when the constable that such person was legally set in the list and has made a list of the land and the taxes assessed taxable in such town. Hurlburt v. Green, 41 thereon, and deposited the same in the town Vt. 490. S. C. 42 Vt. 316. clerk's office for record, according to C. S. c. 81, s. 24. Hutchins v. Moody, 34 Vt. 433. II. TAXABLE PERSONS AND PROPERTY. 19. Where it appeared that a person was taxable either in town A, or in town B, and the evidence as to which town was equally balanced; -Held, that it was error to charge that the fact that he was not listed in town B and had not re 14. Idiot. Under the listing law as exist- turned a list anywhere, furnished an intendment ing in 1836,-Held, that an idiot was not subject to be assessed and taxed for money on hand, or due. Hunt v. Lee, 10 Vt. 297. 14 Vt. 346. in favor of town A [claiming the tax], on the ground that it is the policy of the law that every man shall pay a tax somewhere. Ib. 41 Vt. 490. 15. Town of residence. Under a statute 20. But where the question was one of requiring personal property to be set in the list domicile, whether for purposes of taxation the and taxed in the town where the owner resides; plaintiff was an inhabitant of town A, where he -Held, that such a tax assessed in any other was taxed, or of town B, and the plaintiff, at town is illegal and void ab initio, for want of the trial, claimed that he was an inhabitant of jurisdiction; and that the collector is liable in town B;-Held, that it was competent to prove, trespass or trover for enforcing the collection of as bearing upon the question of intent as to it; and this is so, although the owner gave his domicile, and as an answer to his present claim list in such town, specifying such property for of domicile in town B, that he returned no list taxation he not consenting to the final enforce- in town B, and was not taxed there. S. C. 42 ment of the tax. Blood v. Sayre, 17 Vt. 609. Vt. 316. 16. On the question of residence for the 21. Held, in a trustee suit under G. S. c. 84, purposes of taxation, the plaintiff, for the pur- s. 34, by a tax collector to collect a tax, that pose of showing that he was not taxable in the neither the fact that the defendant's name was defendant town on the 1st of April, proved that set in the list of the town claiming the tax, nor his name was in the grand list of another town the decision of the listers in setting his name (B) for that year, and listed at $3000 for money in the list, was any evidence to prove the on hand and debts due, and that he paid taxes defendant's residence for the purpose of taxthereon for that year. Held, that it was com- ation. petent for the defendant to prove that the plaintiff was not assessed by the listers of town B, but that they took his list as he offered it, and upon his own proposition. Mann v. Clark, 33 Vt. 55. 22. Gregory v. Bugbee, 42 Vt. 480. Ownership April 1. By G. S. c. 83, s. 9, real estate is to be set in the grand list to the person who shall be the owner or possessor thereof on the first day of April in each year. Held, that a farm was properly set in the list for 17. The plaintiff, then residing in Randolph, 1865 to one who was once the owner, and who during the winter of 1854-5 hired a farm in had been in possession and occupation of the Braintree for one year from the 1st day of April farm for many years including the year 1865, following, with the view of living there the next it having been listed to him and he having paid season. In March, 1855, he moved all his the taxes without objection down to 1865, wood and furniture, and most of his provisions, although the legal title stood in another by such from Randolph to this farm. A former occu- possessor's deed executed in 1857, and recorded pant, whose term expired March 31, was not in 1863. Bemis v. Phelps, 41 Vt. 1. ready to leave on that day, and did not leave 23. The subsequent act of 1863, No. 18, s. until April 3d. March 31st (Saturday), the 1, requiring real and personal estate to be set in plaintiff took his wife and family, his cow, the the list to the last owner on the first day of remainder of his provisions and a few cooking April in each year, applies only to cases where utensils, and leaving Randolph and not intend- the ownership of the estate changes on that ing to return there, went to the house of his day. Ib. brother-in-law in Brookfield, near the farm 24. Exemption. Act of 1870, No. 78, which he had hired, and remained there until exempting certain manufacturing establishApril 4, when he moved to the farm and lived ments from taxation. See Westmore Lumber there for the remainder of the year. Held, that Co. v. Orne, 48 Vt. 90, his residence began at Braintree when it ended at Randolph, and that he was subject to assess III. VOTING AND ASSESSING TAXES. IS. c. 83, s. 36. Reed v. Chandler, 32 Vt. 285. 39 Vt. 342. 25. The vote. A vote in school (or town) 33. A grand list is not rendered invalid, meeting, to raise a tax not exceeding a specified because the fact that the proper oath was taken sum, is valid, although it leaves a discretion as by the listers is not evidenced by the certificate to the amount to be raised within the limitation of a magistrate annexed to the certificate of the fixed. Brown v. Hoadley, 12 Vt. 472. 23 Vt.listers. It is sufficient if the oath was in fact 420; and see Adams v. Hyde, 27 Vt. 221. administered; and the certificate of the listers 26. If, after a portion of a tax properly to the list, which was in form of an oath to the voted has been voluntarily paid under the truth of the matters certified, and was signed inducement of a discount, new and unforeseen by them, was held to be sufficient evidence that circumstances render it unnecessary to use the the certificate was properly sworn to. Blodgett the entire amount voted for the purpose for v. Holbrook, 39 Vt. 336. which it was voted, the town may then prop- 34. It is not essential to the validity of a erly vote to have the unpaid taxes fully col- grand list, that it should appear upon the list lected and to refund the surplus to the tax- at what time it was completed and lodged in payers pro rata; or it may collect the tax and the town clerk's office. treat it as funds in the treasury to be used in payment of any other legal obligation of the town. Bellows v. Weeks, 41 Vt. 590. Ib. 35. A grand list is not invalid because sworn to by the listers according to the form prescribed for the years of appraisal of real estate, 27. Where the granting of a State tax was instead of the form prescribed for other years averred in pleading, -Held, that such averment|[which last was the form appropriate to this need not be specifically proved, the laying of case]. Ib. the tax being by general law, of which the court will take notice. Downer v. Woodbury, 19 Vt. 329. 36. If the quinquennial appraisal of real estate is not sworn to by the listers, it is void as a basis of taxation; and a subsequent annual 28. A tax voted on the first day of March, list, made, certified, and sworn to, only accordor at any time thereafter within one year, can- ing to the statute in relation to such lists, does not be lawfully voted, or assessed, upon any not cure the defect, since there is no certificate other grand list than the one then to be com- of appraisal. Houghton v. Hall, 47 Vt. 333. pleted on the 15th day of May following. (G. 37. Where by statute the grand list was S. c. 84, ss. 66, 67.) Alger v. Curry, 38 Vt. 382. Capron v. Raistrick, 44 Vt. 515. Allen v. Burlington, 45 Vt. 202. 29. Assessment. The assessment of a tax must be made on the list in legal existence at the time when it is voted; and if made on any other, the tax is wholly void, and no one can justify under it. Waters v. Daines, 4 Vt. 601. Collamer v. Drury, 16 Vt. 574. 29 Vt. 195. required to be completed and returned as finished on or before a certain day ;-Held, that it became the basis for taxation on that day. Moss v. Hinds, 29 Vt. 188. 38. Where the time within which listers are required by law to complete and return the list to the town clerk's office has elapsed, and the list has been so returned, it then becomes the basis of taxation for the ensuing year, and 30. Requisites of grand list. The law neither the listers, nor the selectmen, nor any requires all taxable property to be put into the other person, has thereafter any legal power to list of each year; and in this respect there is alter or add to it. Downing v. Roberts, 21 Vt. no difference between real and personal estate. 441. Bellows v. Weeks, 41 Vt. 590. Each list must be complete and perfect in itself 39. Any such alteration, made by a stranger, without reference to any former list; and no would not invalidate the list, nor have any taxes can be legally assessed, either for real or effect to change it, but only the alteration personal property, unless such property be would be nugatory and void. So, also, semble, inserted in the current list for the year. Down- if made by the listers. Bellows v. Weeks. ing v. Roberts, 21 Vt. 441. 40. Alterations made in the grand list of the 31. A list is not complete and cannot form several towns by the equalizing committee of the basis of a legal tax, until the alterations the legislature, affect only State taxes. Spear required by the county and State committees v. Braintree, 24 Vt. 414. (1852.) Barnes v. are made; and held, that where the listers of a Ovitt, 47 Vt. 316. (1875.) town omitted to make the alterations required 41. Mere circumstantial errors or mistakes, by such committees, but, on the contrary, made or defect in the detail of items in the making arbitrary additions thereto, the list was void. up of a list, like an error of computation in Henry v. Chester, 15 Vt. 460. (1843.) 24 Vt. assessing a tax, do not render the list or the tax 418. void, when they are accidental, or made bona 32. The grand list of a town is not perfected fide. Spear v. Braintree, 24 Vt. 414. Henry as a basis for taxation, unless signed, certified v. Chester, 15 Vt. 460. and sworn to by the listers, as provided by G. 42. An omission by the listers to set down |