Les Mills Pump Tracklist

[Martta Borromeo]

Findingsof fact by the Board of Tax Appeals in proceedings under c. 58A, added to the General Laws by St. 1930, c. 416, 1, are final; and an appeal to this court under 13 of said c. 58A, as amended by St. 1931, c. 218, 1, from a decision by the board presents only questions of law raised in such proceedings.

Where the assessors of a town were familiar with the property of a corporation operating cotton mills in the town and accepted without objection a list filed by the corporation in good faith and were not misled thereby, the list was not insufficient in that the manufacturing property of the corporation was described therein merely as "Machinery, land, railroad sidings, office and manufacturing buildings, taken at $10.00 per spindle $1,209,440.00," it appearing that the use of the spindle as a unit for valuing textile mill properties as a whole including land and buildings fairly signified to those acquainted with mill property the size and capacity of the mill.

The list above described was not insufficient in that land, on which were tenement houses used by the corporation to house its employees, was described by merely being divided into two parts with a statement of the streets, the numbers of the houses on the several streets and the number of tenements in the different houses, with a valuation on each covering land and building, but without showing a definite lot for each house.

A finding by the Board of Tax Appeals in proceedings under said c. 58A, that the machinery of the corporation above described in use on April 1 was a certain number of spindles and complementary machinery, was not controlled by a further finding, at the request of the assessors, that the corporation was the owner of machinery "used in manufacture" shown in a certain inventory, which listed every machine in the plant on April 1, including machinery found to have been acquired for replacement purposes only and not to be a part of the machinery set up and ready to operate in the mills.

The list above described was not insufficient in the circumstances by reason of inaccuracies or omissions in the description of the real estate or personal property which were made innocently and had not caused any inconvenience to the assessors.

In proceedings for the abatement of a tax, there was no error in considering events coming to pass within a reasonable time after the tax date from causes then operative, so far as they threw light on the valuation on the tax date.

Upon an appeal from a decision by the Board of Tax Appeals under said c. 58A, as so amended, this court has jurisdiction in conformity therewith to order execution for the amount of an abatement and costs to issue against the municipality although the municipality is not by name a party to the proceedings, it being represented therein by its assessors.

Upon such an appeal, this court, having found no error of law in the decision by the Board of Tax Appeals, ordered granted an abatement in the sum specified by the board, with interest and costs both before the board and this court, and that, if such total amount were not paid by the treasurer of the municipality within thirty days after the date of the rescript, execution should thereafter issue therefor when a proper certificate of the costs as ordered by the board should be filed with the clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for the county, such execution to run against phe municipality.

Subsequently, by order of Beaudreau, J., the case was transferred to the Board of Tax Appeals pursuant to St. 1930, c. 416, 33, and a petition against the assessors of the town was substituted for the complaint. Material facts found by the Board of Tax Appeals are stated in the opinion. An abatement in the sum of $31,962.52 was granted. The respondents appealed.

RUGG, C.J. This proceeding by way of appeal from refusal by the assessors of Easthampton to abate a tax was begun in the Superior Court under G. L. c. 59, 65, by complaint against the town of Easthampton by the

owner of the property assessed. See Welch v. Boston, 211 Mass. 178, 186. Subsequently, pursuant to St. 1930, c. 416, 33, on motion of the town, the proceeding was transferred to the Board of Tax Appeals. That board was created by c. 58A inserted in the General Laws by 1 of said c. 416. Thereafter, in conformity to the nomenclature established by said c. 58A, the owner of the property assessed, termed the appellant, filed with the board a substitute petition running against the board of assessors of the town, termed the appellee, setting forth in detail the matters of which it complained. G. L. c. 58A, 7. See Thayer Academy v. Braintree, 232 Mass. 402, 406. The decision of the board in favor of the appellant to the extent of granting a considerable abatement was promulgated on June 15, 1931. The appellee appealed on July 3, 1931. Such appeal brings to the court only matters of law raised in proceedings before the board, its decision being final as to finding^ of fact. No question has been raised touching parties or forms of procedure. G. L. c. 58A, 13, as amended by St. 1931, c. 218, 1. Only rulings of law made by the board have been argued.

The sufficiency of the list filed by the appellant was challenged. The facts as found by the board relevant to that question are these: The appellant is a corporation organized under the laws of this Commonwealth. It owned a cotton mill and machinery, tenement properties, a recreation building and tracts of vacant land in Easthampton. The assessors of the town in 1930, as authorized by law, gave notice requiring persons subject to taxation to bring in a true list of their real and personal estate. In attempted compliance therewith, the appellant filed a list on the prescribed form. It described itself by its corporate name and as "of No. 188 Pleasant St. . . . Easthampton." The only description of the mill properties in the list was " Machinery, land, railroad sidings, office and manufacturing buildings, taken at $10.00 per spindle $1,209,440.00." The board rightly drew the inference from these statements of the list that the appellant owned a mill of 120,944 spindles, and that the mill was situated at 188 Pleasant Street. It

further found that the spindle is frequently used as a unit of measure for valuing not only textile machinery but textile mill properties as a whole including land and buildings; that it is one of the ordinary ways of describing a mill and machinery and fairly signifies to those acquainted with mills and mill property the size and capacity of the mill; that it was used in this sense by the appellant in making up its list. There was testimony to that effect. Even if, as argued by the appellee, this testimony in parts was somewhat inconsistent or shaken on cross-examination, its weight was for the board and it was sufficient to support the finding. Gold v. Spector, 247 Mass. 110-111, and cases cited. McCrillis v. L. Q. White Shoe Co. 264 Mass. 32, 34. Commonwealth v. Whitcomb, ante, 27.

As bearing on the sufficiency of the list, further facts were found to this effect: In 1929, the appellant filed a list which set out under the heading, " Real Estate," "Land, mill buildings, tenements, etc., as per list on file in your office." Similar reference to list on file in the assessors' office was made in 1928. In addition to the usual books and plans, the assessors had a system of cards on which were listed the mill buildings and other structures and the area of the land in the mill yard. The assessors had been over the buildings frequently, had been furnished with detailed information of their dimensions and character, and knew that 188 Pleasant Street was the location of the appellant's main office in the mill yard. In a letter sent to the assessors in 1930 with the list, attention was directed to the fact that the list was made on the basis of $10 per spindle as a value for machinery, land, railroad sidings, office and manufacturing buildings, and that this was a prevalent method of valuing similar plants in the eastern part of the Commonwealth. The list was filed without intention to mislead. It was accepted by the assessors without objection on the ground of insufficiency, was received and accepted as a true list of the appellant's taxable property, and conveyed to the assessors a reasonable understanding of the nature and extent of that property. The conclusion of the board respecting this part of the list is

in these words: " The description of the appellant's land, buildings and machinery constituting its mill, in the list which it filed, was not given in comprehensive detail. Nevertheless the location was indicated and land, buildings and machinery were referred to by a customary unit of measure. Moreover the properties were well known to the assessors, they asked for no further description, and the list was filed in good faith."

The findings as to the character and extent of the mill properties of the appellant were in these words: " On April 1, 1930, the mill properties owned by the appellant consisted of six mills, eight storehouses, two office buildings, a picker house, boiler house, engine house, two transformer houses, a pump house and some smaller buildings, all located on an elongated tract of land containing about seventeen acres, on the northerly side of the mill pond between the pond and Pleasant Street. The pond was about forty-three acres in area. Two railroad tracks, one belonging to the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad and the other to the Boston and Maine Railroad, ran the length of the land near the shore of the pond, and sidings led from the tracks to the mills. The original Mill (number 2), two storehouses, picker house and pump house were between the tracks and the pond; the other buildings were on the other side of the tracks, between them and Pleasant Street. The main office building was at the easterly end of the lot and the mills as they were erected were numbered consecutively 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, extending in the westerly direction. Mill number 2 was connected by a bridge across the tracks with Mill number 3, and the other mills and storehouses were either contiguous to each other or connected by bridges or tunnels .... The plant had a capacity, when fully equipped, of about 137,000 spindles. On April 1, 1930, Mill number 2 had no machinery in it, Mill number 3 practically none, and some of the floors in the other mills also were empty or partially filled. The mills were operated on purchased power with motor drives, the power plant having been abandoned. The boiler plant furnished steam and hot water for heating and

3a8082e126