Glidden v. Harrington
Headline: Court upheld a city’s ordinary tax assessment process, ruling posted notice and statutory abatement steps met due process and allowing a city to tax shares recorded in a trustee’s name.
Holding:
- Allows cities to assess unreported trust property based on posted notice and assessor estimates.
- Requires taxpayers to file lists or use statutory abatement to challenge an assessment.
- Validates taxing property listed in a trustee’s name when statutory procedures are followed.
Summary
Background
A resident of Lowell who was listed as one of several trustees was assessed for large stock holdings of the Erie Telegraph and Telephone Company after the city council ordered assessments for 1889. The assessors posted public notice asking inhabitants to bring lists of personal and trust property by June 15. The assessors later relied on an investigator’s report and, on July 25, voted to assess trustees $160,000 each. The tax bill was delivered around September 1. The man later filed a statement saying he did not own the shares and applied for an abatement; several hearings followed, and a succeeding city collector began this action.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the assessment and collection steps denied the man “due process” under the Fourteenth Amendment (basic constitutional fairness). The Court found the assessors had followed the state statute: they gave public notice, had authority to determine particulars when a taxpayer failed to list property, and could estimate value. The trial court refused some of the man’s evidence about ownership, and the judges concluded the assessors had jurisdiction because he lived in Lowell and had taxable personal property there. The Court held these statutory procedures and chances for abatement met constitutional fairness and affirmed the lower-court judgment.
Real world impact
The decision upholds a city’s power to assess unreported personal or trust property using posted notice and assessor estimates, and confirms that the statutory abatement process is the route to challenge such taxes. Taxpayers who fail to file required lists must use the provided abatement and appeal procedures to dispute assessments.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?