Wilcox v. Town of Madison
| Decision Date | 06 June 1927 |
| Citation | 137 A. 742,106 Conn. 223 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILCOX v. TOWN OF MADISON ET AL. |
Case Reserved from Superior Court, New Haven County; Alfred C Baldwin, Judge.
George E. Beers and Frederick C. Hesselmeyer, both of New Haven, for plaintiff.
Ernest L. Averill, of Branford, for defendants.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and CURTIS, MALTBIE, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.
The plaintiff in this action seeks to have the defendants, the town of Madison and its tax collector, enjoined from proceeding with the collection of taxes assessed upon his property both real and personal, alleging that the proceedings taken by the board of assessors of the town in placing the valuations upon the items of real estate upon his tax list, and the action of the defendant Watrous, the tax collector of the town, in issuing a warrant for the collection of the taxes assessed against the plaintiff, were irregular and illegal, that the enforcement of such tax would constitute the taking of his property without due course of law, and would work an irreparable injury to him, and that he has no adequate remedy other than that afforded by this action.
As appears from the agreed statement of facts, the plaintiff gave in his tax list within the time prescribed by law, containing a list of all the property real and personal owned by him October 1, 1924, in the town of Madison. Upon the reverse side of the printed form he listed his house, barns, etc., under the head " Buildings," the lots upon which the buildings stood under the head " House Lots," and his remaining land under the head " Land, Parcels of Farms, etc." No valuations were placed upon the various items by the plaintiff except that, opposite the item " Cash on hand etc.," he inserted the figure " $550. " The assessors wrote nothing upon the reverse side of the list but added a sheet upon the same printed form upon which they listed under the head " House and Building Lots," with a subdivision entitled " Acreage," all the property listed by the plaintiff under the heads " House Lots" and " Lands, Parcels of Farms, etc.," and entered the valuations placed upon the same. They then entered the total valuation so determined upon the face of the tax list opposite the items listed by the plaintiff in the column entitled " Assessor's Valuation." The officials of the town thereupon laid a tax of $2,034.60 upon the property of the plaintiff, and took the usual steps up to and including the issuance of service of the general tax warrant, which were in all respects regular and valid. The plaintiff took no appeal to the board of relief, but refused to pay the tax, and on July 20, 1926, the defendant Watrous, as tax collector, issued an alias warrant under the provisions of chapter 121 of the Public Acts of 1925, under which the defendant Maley, as a deputy sheriff, made demand upon the plaintiff for the amount of the tax with accretions and incidents, amounting in the whole to $2,306.39. The defendants suspended further action upon the tax warrant, and, without prejudice to any rights, consented to the issuance of a temporary injunction holding the matter in statu quo until the rights of the parties could be adjudicated.
The questions upon which the advice of this court is sought are stated as follows:
(1) Whether the inclusion of the land referred to in paragraphs 9 to 16, inclusive, by the assessors in Exhibit 3, in the manner in which they have included it, is valid and constitutes a proper basis for the assessment of said land.
(2) Whether a violation of law in this respect has invalidated or otherwise affected the assessment as to said land.
(3) Whether the steps essential to the validity of the alias tax warrant have been taken.
(4) Whether the enforcement of the tax as assessed would constitute the taking of property without due process of law, and would be contrary to the provisions of the United States Constitution and the amendments thereof.
(5) Whether such enforcement would likewise be in contravention of the Constitution of the state of Connecticut and to the amendments thereof.
(6) Whether the superior court has any jurisdiction in the premises.
(7) Whether the said court has jurisdiction to grant a permanent injunction restraining any further action by any of the defendants hereto, or any one acting in their behalf, against the collection or enforcement of the tax assessed in this case.
(8) Whether or not the superior court has jurisdiction to render a judgment declaring said tax to be null and void and removing the lien thereof.
(9) Whether or not the superior court has jurisdiction to render a judgment in the alternative to collect any amount of said tax, should it be found to be illegal only in part, and declaring the balance null and void and removing the lien thereof.
(10) Whether or not the plaintiff has any adequate remedy at law.
The controlling question is whether equity will enjoin the collection of a tax in the circumstances here presented. There exists an apparent want of harmony in the decisions of courts of other jurisdictions upon the question of the exercise of equitable jurisdiction to enjoin the collection of taxes. In a considerable number of States the courts have held that the jurisdiction rests solely upon the illegality or invalidity of the tax, independent of any ground for equitable relief, while in perhaps an equal number it has been held that equity will not interfere by injunction with the collection of a tax which is alleged to be illegal or void, merely because of its illegality, but that jurisdiction depends upon the existence of some recognized ground for general equitable relief, and when the taxpayer is threatened with irreparable injury and has no adequate remedy at law. The latter seems to us to be the sounder rule and the one which has been uniformly followed in the decisions of this court. As we said in New London v. Perkins, 87 Conn. 229, 234, 87 A. 724, 726:
" No court of equity will therefore allow its injunction to issue to restrain the collection of a tax, except where it may be necessary to protect the rights of the citizen whose property is taxed from irreparable injury, and when he has no adequate remedy by the process of law."
That was an action brought by the city of New London to enjoin the tax collector of Groton from selling for taxes land used by the city of New London as a public landing for its municipally owned and operated ferry. We held that land owned by a municipal corporation in another town, which was by legislative authority made exempt from taxation, was exempt from taxation, which brought the case within the recognized exception to the general doctrine of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spector Motor Service v. Walsh
...it in the Lawler case, supra, cited by the district court, and in other cases involving town taxes, including Wilcox v. Town of Madison, 106 Conn. 223, 137 A. 742, 743, which appears to be the last authoritative statement of the rule. The court there said that it had refused to adopt the ru......
-
State v. Clemente
...time to time, ordain and establish: the powers and jurisdiction of which courts shall be defined by law.'3 See also Wilcox v. Madison, 106 Conn. 223, 231, 137 A. 742, appeal dismissed, 276 U.S. 606, 48 S.Ct. 337, 72 L.Ed. 728; State v. Torello, 103 Conn. 511, 520, 131 A. 429; Lew v. Bray, 8......
-
Romero v. Weakley
...uncertainty surrounding the adequacy of the Connecticut remedy. See Waterbury Savings Bank v. Lawler, 46 Conn. 243; Wilcox v. Town of Madison, 106 Conn. 223, 137 A. 742. But there is no doubt that Connecticut makes available an action for declaratory judgment for the determination of those ......
-
Spector Motor Serv. Inc. v. Walsh.
...an assessment is made is exempt by law from taxation; City of New London v. Perkins, 87 Conn. 229, 235, 87 A. 724; Wilcox v. Town of Madison, 106 Conn. 223, 227, 137 A. 742; certainly there is no reason to doubt that our courts would enjoin the collection of a tax found due from a single pe......