(Download) "Codman v. Assessors Westwood Et Al." by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Codman v. Assessors Westwood Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 26, 1941
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 69 KB
Description
RONAN, Justice. This petition for a writ of mandamus alleges that the petitioner was the owner of a certain parcel of land in Westwood upon which a tax, based upon a valuation of $43,800 as determined by the board of assessors of said town, was assessed for the years 1935 and 1936; that he never filed any applications for the abatement of these taxes; that he paid a part of the taxes assessed for each of said years; that in 1937 the value of this parcel was reduced to $28,200 by the said assessors, who have since made no change in its valuation; that the property was worth no more in 1935 and 1936 than it was in 1937 and the subsequent years; that the commissioner of corporations and taxation, acting under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 58, § 8, as inserted by St.1935, c. 322, § 1, has written two letters to the respondent board of assessors, authorizing them to grant an abatement of the balance that the petitioner had not paid upon the taxes for 1935 and 1936; that, notwithstanding a statement of a representative of the respondent board that such an abatement would be made if authority was secured from the said commissioner, the said board has arbitrarily and capriciously failed to act in accordance with the said authority conferred by the commissioner. The petitioner has appealed from orders of the Superior Court sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the petition. A question of practice lies at the threshold. An appeal does not lie from a decision of a single Justice of this court in dismissing a petition for mandamus. Channell v. Judge of Central District Court of Northern Essex, 213 Mass. 78, 99 N.E. 769; St. Nicholas Russian Benefit Society, Inc., v. Yaselko, 279 Mass. 81, 180 N.E. 721; Procida v. Ianiantuani, 295 Mass. 479, 4 N.E.2d 296. But by St.1939, c. 257, jurisdiction over certain extraordinary remedies, so called, and including petitions for mandamus, with certain exceptions, was conferred upon the Superior Court. This statute provides that the Judge of the Superior Court may reserve and report to to this court questions of law arising in such proceedings, but it gives no remedy by appeal. Ordinarily, an appeal may be taken from a decision on a question of law made by a Judge of that court in an action at law, by virtue of G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 231, § 96. Whether the decision of the Judge of the Superior Court upon a petition for mandamus is no more appealable than would be a decision made by a single Justice of this court, or whether it is subject to an appeal under the statute last mentioned, need not be decided because in any event the determination of the question cannot affect the final Disposition of the case.