Holden v. Eaton
Holden v. Eaton
Opinion of the Court
It appears by the Act of Congress, that the collector might enforce payment of the tax by distress on personal property, or by a sale of land. No limitation of time is provided for making the distress, and there seems to be no good reason why the collector should not sell real estate after the expiration of the two years, as well as personal. The design of the limitation was to prevent the alienation of real estate from being encumbered for an unreasonable period. We think then that the deputy was authorized to make the sale in question, after the two years had expired ;
The declaration ought to allege that the tax was duly as sessed, and if it is defective in this respect, the plaintiff mar have leave to amend.
Mew trial granted.
See Revised Stat.. c. 8, § 18; Holden v. Eaton, 8 Pick. 436; Hayden Foster, 13 Pick. 492.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Moses Holden versus William Eaton
- Status
- Published