The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
This is an action of trespass founded on the supposed illegal assessment of a parish tax made by the defendants, they being assessors of the Fourth Religious Society in Newburyport.
The plaintiff, to support his action, must maintain two propositions : — first, that the assessment against him was ille
The first proposition will be found to depend on the con struction to be given to the St. 1823, c. 106, by the 2d sec tian of which it is enacted, that “ any person may separate from one religious society and join another, either of the same, or of a different denomination, by filing with the clerk of the society left, a certificate of the fact, under the hand of the clerk of the society, which such person elects to join.” It appears, by the exceptions, that previous to the grant and assessment of the tax complained of, the plaintiff had filed with the clerk of the Fourth Religious Society, of Which he had before been a member, a certificate, under the hand of the clerk of the Second Presbyterian Society, certifying the fact that the plaintiff had joined himself to the latter society. No objection has been made to the form of the certificate, but the defendant’s counsel contend that the filing of the certificate is not alone sufficient to transfer the membership or relation from one religious society to another; and at the trial in the court below, they offered to prove that, except for a few Sundays after the filing of the certificate, the plaintiff had generally attended public worship with the Fourth Religious Society, and not with the Second Presbyterian Society. This evidence was rejected by the court, as irrelevant; the court being of opinion, that, by filing- the certificate pursuant to the statute, the plaintiff ipso facto became a member of the Second Presbyterian Society; and that his attending public worship afterwards in the Fourth Religious Society could not re-transfer his relation to that society, without the filing of a new certificate. And we all concur in this opinion. The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, and when such is the language of a statute, we are bound to read it according to its obvious and usual signification, whatever may be our opinion of the expediency of the law. If we should give it a strained construction, even from motives of public policy, and for the advancement of apparent justice in a particular case, we should be justly chargeable with usurpa-, tian of power, and a violation of the constitution we are sworn to support.
But the defendants’ counsel rely also upon the St. 1793, c. 44, which provides that the inhabitants of Newburyport shall be exempted from taxation, for the support of public worship, “ in any other place or society therein, than that
By this statute nothing more is required, for the purpose of changing one’s parochial relations, than the filing of a certain certificate; and if this is sufficient, then clearly a provision which requires other and further conditions to be performed for the same purpose, must be held repugnant. And such is the provision relied on by the defendants’ counsel. We have, therefore, no difficulty in deciding that it was abrogated by the statute of 1823, if not by that of 1811, c. 6. The limited privilege secured to the inhabitants of Newburyport by the special statute, was merged in the more- enlarged privilege granted by the latter acts.
But if it were otherwise ; if these provisions were dissimilar but not repugnant, and might stand together, still the plaintiff had the right to pursue the provision of either statute. As if by one statute jurisdiction of a matter be given to one court, and afterwards by a new statute the same matter is made cognizable by another court, both courts shall have a concurrent jurisdiction ; and a party may elect to appeal to either tribunal for redress. So when different remedies are provided for the same injury, a party may elect that which he thinks most beneficial. It would not, therefore, avail the defendants, to show that there is nothing repugnant in the two statutes, since it is manifest that the plaintiff has strictly and fully complied with the provisions of the latter statute.
The remaining inquiry is, whether the defendants are liable in trespass for an illegal assessment. It is clear that they are,
1.
See Sumner v. First Parish in Dorchester, ante, 363, n. 1; Reviseo Stat e. 20, § 4.
1.
See Withington v. Eveleth, 7 Pick. 106; Inglee v. Bosworth, 5 Pick. 498; Sumner v. First Parish in Dorchester, ante, 365, n. 1.