Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Kelsey
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Citizens Savings Bank v. Guaranty Loan Co. (R.I. 1939)
- First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Proctor (1st Cir. 1930)
- In re Boston Harbor Marina Co. (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts 1993)
- Conaty v. Guaranty Loan Co. (R.I. 1939)
- Massachusetts Hospital Life Insurance Co. v. Shulman (Mass. 1938)
- Wiggin v. Lowell Five Cent Savings Bank (Mass. 1938)
- Willits v. Jencks Manufacturing Co. (R.I. 1934)
- In re Baltimore Pearl Hominy Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1923)
- Davis v. Pullen (1st Cir. 1922)
- City of Boston v. Quincy Market Cold Storage & Warehouse Co. (Mass. 1942)
- Choate v. Assessors of Boston (Mass. 1939)
- Hamilton Manufacturing Co. v. City of Lowell (Mass. 1931)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The tax was assessed to the Standard Cordage Company, hereinafter called the company; and although there was a lien upon the land the primary liability was upon the company. Webber Lumber Co. v. Shaw, 189 Mass. 366. By the terms of the mortgage, as between the company and the plaintiff, it is the duty of the company to pay the tax. The tax collector can collect the tax by proving it as a preferred claim against the fund held by the receiver in this Commonwealth (R. L. c. 150, § 29), or by taking measures to enforce the lien upon the land. He threatens to take the latter course. The plaintiff therefore in order to protect its own property from an incumbrance which it is the duty of the company, as between it and the plaintiff, to pay, is compelled to pay a debt of the latter. Upon the payment of the tax the plaintiff is clearly entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the taxpayer so far as respects the lien upon the land. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Pell, 2 Edw. Ch. 631, 634. Farmer v. Ward, 5 Buch. 33. Jones on Mortgages, (6th ed.) § 358.
There is nothing in this conclusion inconsistent with Swan v. Emerson, 129 Mass. 289, upon which the receiver relies. It is apparent that in that case the purchaser at the foreclosure sale bought subject to the taxes and that the person to whom the tax was assessed owed to the purchaser no duty in the matter.
Demurrer overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.