MANDELBAUM
v.
THE PEOPLE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court reversed a lower court judgment that had struck out a double taxation defense from the defendant's answer to a property tax action, keeping only one property item in dispute. The Court held that it was error for the trial court to selectively remove portions of a legally valid defense without explanation, as defendants have the right to rely on good defenses presented in their pleadings.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
It will be seen by reference to the statutes of the Territory of the 29th November, 1861, that the assessor is only authorized to make subsequent assessments upon the property of a citizen or inhabitant, which was-,subject to taxation at a regular or annual assessment, and had escaped the tax from mistake, or otherwise, and which is a very common provision in every system of taxation. And, if this was the question presented to the court below, upon the pleadings or proofs, there could be no doubt as to the correctness of the decision. But the question presented by the answer was not one of this description, but of double taxation; for, if the 'facts were true as set forth, the property had been taxed either at the regular assessment, or had been purchased or procured by the defendants after this assessment; and, therefore, not the subject of a subsequent tax within the meaning of the statute. On this ground the answer presented a perfect defence to the action.
The court below, however, on motion of the plaintiff, struck out this defence as to all the property except one item of seven or eight thousand dollars in value, which stood in the answer in the same category with all the rest of the property. This singular mode of meeting a legal defence set up in the pleadings has not-been explained by any counsel representing the plaintiff; and in the absence of such explanation , we can only apply to it the usual and customary principles governing pleadings in like cases, and hold that it was an error which entitled the party aggrieved to a reversal of the judgment.
If any authority was needed for so obvious a proposition, we refer to the case of Hozey v. Buchanan.
*
, The court there say that it would be as novel as it would seem to be unjust to strike out of the answer, on motion of the plaintiff, that which constitutes a good defence, and on which the defendant may chiefly rely.
JUDHMENT REVERSED AND REMITTED TO COURT BELOW.
*
16 Peters, 215.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller v. Claflin, 93 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1876)…thér answer on the next morning, also contained a final judgment for the amount of the notes described, with interest and costs, and directed that execution issue therefor. Such an order has often been held to be appealable. Mandebaum v. The People, 8 Wall. 310; Hozey v. Bachan, 16 Pet. 215; Trustees v. Forbes, 8 How. 285; Crucible Co. v. Steel Works, 9 Abb. Pr. n. s. 195; Union Bank v. Mott, 11 Abb. Pr. 42; Shelden v. Adams, 18 id. 405. The question then recurs upon the merits of the order striking out t…
Authorities Cited
- Hozey v. Buchanan, 16 Pet. 215 (U.S. 1842)